On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 10:32 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm fine with it, but IIRC the Rust support for most targets was pulled > out as they weren't deemed ready to go yet. If the Rust folks are OK So we trimmed the original series from v8 to v9 as much as possible in order to upstream things piece by piece, get maintainers involved, and so on; i.e. they were not trimmed because they were not ready. Having said that, for the architectures support in particular, what we had is indeed a prototype: each architecture we added was able to compile, boot into QEMU, load the sample Rust modules, pass a few tests, and so on in our CI, using a couple kernel configs. But that is just the basic support, and it does not mean it works for other kernel configs, all hardware, all security features, and so on. So it depends on how you want to approach it, whether you are interested in the basic support or not, etc. In any case, I would recommend having an expert on the architecture take a look to double-check things look sane, run some tests on real hardware, etc. > turning on RISC-V support then it's fine with me, but I think it's > really more up to them at this point. > > So > > Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > in case folks want to take it via some Rust-related tree, but I'm also > fine taking it via the RISC-V tree if that's easier. Thanks Palmer! We are trying to get maintainers of the different subsystems/archs/... involved so that they maintain the different Rust bits we are upstreaming, so ideally it would go through the RISC-V tree. Cheers, Miguel
