On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 03:54:37PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On 26.07.24 17:15, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 02:42:36PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> >> On 26.07.24 16:26, Boqun Feng wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 01:43:38PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You can always get a `&T` from `ARef<T>`, since it implements `Deref`.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah, but this is unrelated. I was talking about that API providers can
> >>>>> decide whether they want to only provide a `raw_ptr` -> `ARef<Self>` if
> >>>>> they don't need to provide a `raw_ptr` -> `&Self`.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Overall, I feel like we don't necessarily make a preference between
> >>>>>>> `->&Self` and `->ARef<Self>` functions here, since it's up to the users'
> >>>>>>> design?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would argue that there should be a clear preference for functions
> >>>>>> returning `&Self` when possible (ie there is a parameter that the
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If "possible" also means there's going to be `raw_ptr` -> `&Self`
> >>>>> function (as the same publicity level) anyway, then agreed. In other
> >>>>> words, if the users only need the `raw_ptr` -> `ARef<Self>`
> >>>>> functionality, we don't want to force people to provide a `raw_ptr` ->
> >>>>> `&Self` just because, right?
> >>>>
> >>>> I see... I am having a hard time coming up with an example where users
> >>>> would exclusively want `ARef<Self>` though... What do you have in mind?
> >>>> Normally types wrapped by `ARef` have `&self` methods.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Having `&self` methods doesn't mean the necessarity of a `raw_ptr` ->
> >>> `&Self` function, for example, a `Foo` is wrapped as follow:
> >>>
> >>> struct Foo(Opaque<foo>);
> >>> impl Foo {
> >>> pub fn bar(&self) -> Bar { ... }
> >>> pub unsafe fn get_foo(ptr: *mut foo) -> ARef<Foo> { ... }
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> in this case, the abstration provider may not want user to get a
> >>> `raw_ptr` -> `&Self` function, so no need to have it.
> >>
> >> I don't understand this, why would the abstraction provider do that? The
> >
> > Because no user really needs to convert a `raw_ptr` to a `&Self` whose
> > lifetime is limited to a scope?
>
> What if you have this:
>
> unsafe extern "C" fn called_from_c_via_vtable(foo: *mut bindings::foo) {
> // SAFETY: ...
> let foo = unsafe { Foo::from_raw(foo) };
> foo.bar();
> }
>
> In this case, there is no need to take a refcount on `foo`.
>
> > Why do we provide a function if no one needs and the solely purpose is
> > to just avoid providing another function?
>
> I don't think that there should be a lot of calls to that function
> anyways and thus I don't think there is value in providing two functions
> for almost the same behavior. Since one can be derived by the other, I
> would go for only implementing the first one.
I don't think there should be a rule saying that we can't provide a wrapper
function for deriving an `ARef<T>`. `Device` is a good example:
`let dev: ARef<Device> = unsafe { Device::from_raw(raw_dev) }.into();`
vs.
`let dev = unsafe { Device::get(raw_dev) };`
To me personally, the latter looks quite a bit cleaner.
Besides that, I think every kernel engineer (even without Rust background) will
be able to decode the meaning of this call. And if we get the chance to make
things obvious to everyone *without* the need to make a compromise, we should
clearly take it.
>
> >> user can already get a `&Foo` reference, so what's the harm having a
> >> function supplying that directly?
> >
> > Getting a `&Foo` from a `ARef<Foo>` is totally different than getting a
> > `&Foo` from a pointer, right? And it's OK for an abstraction provider to
> > want to avoid that.
> >
> > Another example that you may not want to provide a `-> &Self` function
> > is:
> > struct Foo(Opaque<foo>);
> > impl Foo {
> > pub fn bar(&self) -> Bar { ... }
> > pub fn find_foo(idx: u32) -> ARef<Foo> { ... }
> > }
> >
> > in other words, you have a query function (idx -> *mut foo), and I think
> > in this case, you would avoid `find_foo(idx: u32) -> &Foo`, right?
>
> Yes, this is the exception I had in mind with "if possible (ie there is
> a parameter that the lifetime can bind to)" (in this case there wouldn't
> be such a parameter).
>
> > Honestly, this discussion has been going to a rabit hole. I will mention
> > and already mentioned the conversion `&Self` -> `ARef<Self>`. Leaving
> > the preference part blank is fine to me, since if it's a good practice,
> > then everybody will follow, otherwise, we are missing something here.
> > Just trying to not make a descision for the users...
>
> Sure.
>
> ---
> Cheers,
> Benno
>
