Re: [RFC 2/2] rust: sync: Add atomic support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 6/14/24 6:24 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 06:03:37PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
On 6/14/24 2:59 AM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:05 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Does this make sense?

Implementation-wise, if you think it is simpler or more clear/elegant
to have the extra lower level layer, then that sounds fine.

However, I was mainly talking about what we would eventually expose to
users, i.e. do we want to provide `Atomic<T>` to begin with? If yes,
then we could make the lower layer private already.

We can defer that extra layer/work if needed even if we go for
`Atomic<T>`, but it would be nice to understand if we have consensus
for an eventual user-facing API, or if someone has any other opinion
or concerns on one vs. the other.

Well, here's one:

The reason that we have things like atomic64_read() in the C code is
because C doesn't have generics.

In Rust, we should simply move directly to Atomic<T>, as there are,
after all, associated benefits. And it's very easy to see the connection

What are the associated benefits you are referring to? Rust std doesn't
use Atomic<T>, that somewhat proves that we don't need it.
Just the stock things that a generic provides: less duplicated code,
automatic support for future types (although here it's really just
integer types we care about of course).


thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux