On 7/11/2025 3:54 PM, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Fri Jul 11, 2025 at 9:35 PM CEST, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> It looks good to me. A few high-level comments:
>>
>> 1. If we don't expect the concurrency issue for this in C code, why do we
>> expect it to happen in rust?
>
> The race can happen in C as well, but people would probably argue that no one
> ever calls the mask setter function concurrently to DMA allocation and mapping
> primitives.
>
After going through the DMA code some more, I am convinced the concurrency is an
issue so marking the higher-level rust wrapper as unsafe { } makes sense.
Thanks Danilo for the discussion and Miguel also for the clarifications on the
other thread.
- Joel
