On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 01:22:52PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 12:25 PM Konstantin Shelekhin > <k.shelekhin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I sense possible problems here. It's common for a kernel code to pass > > flags during memory allocations. > > Yes, of course. We will support this, but how exactly it will look > like, to what extent upstream Rust's `alloc` could support our use > cases, etc. has been on discussion for a long time. > > For instance, see https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/pull/815 for > a potential extension trait approach with no allocator carried on the > type that Andreas wrote after a discussion in the last informal call: > > let a = Box::try_new_atomic(101)?; Something I've been wondering about for a while is ... struct task_struct { ... + gfp_t gfp_flags; ... }; We've already done some work towards this with the scoped allocation API for NOIO and NOFS, but having spin_lock() turn current->gfp_flags into GFP_ATOMIC might not be the worst idea in the world.
