"Greg KH" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 10:51:53AM +0100, Andreas Hindborg wrote: >> "Greg KH" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 04:38:30PM +0100, Andreas Hindborg wrote: [cut] >> > >> >> - Can we merge this so I can move forward at my current projected >> >> course, or should I plan on dealing with not having this available? >> > >> > We generally do not want to merge apis without any real users, as it's >> > hard to justify them, right? Also, we don't even know if they work >> > properly or not. >> >> While null_blk is just a piece of testing infrastructure that you would >> not deploy in a production environment, it is still a "real user". I am >> sure we can agree on the importance of testing. >> >> The exercise I am undertaking is to produce a drop in replacement of the >> existing C null_blk driver. If all goes well, we are considering to swap >> the C implementation for the Rust implementation in X number of years. >> Granted - a lot of things have to fall into place for that to happen, >> but that is the plan. This plan does not really work well if the two >> modules do not have the same interface. > > Why do you have to have the same interface? Why not do it "properly" > and make it use configfs that way you can have multiple devices and test > them all at the same time? > > As this is "just" a testing driver, there should not be any need to keep > the same user/kernel api for setting things up, right? Because that would break all the users that use the old interface. > > Again, don't make the mistakes we have in the past, drivers should NOT > be using module parameters. > >> I understand that you would like to phase out module parameters, but I >> don't think blocking their use from Rust is the right way to go about >> that task. If you really feel that module parameters have no place in >> new drivers, I would suggest that to be part of review process for each >> individual new driver - not at the stage of enabling module parameters >> for Rust in general. > > I'm saying that module parameters do NOT belong in a driver, which is > what you are wanting to do here. And as for adding new apis, please > only do so when you have a real user, I don't see a real user for module > parameters in rust just yet. If that changes, I'll reconsider my stance :) I guess we disagree about what is "real" and what is not. In my view, null_blk is real, it is used by real people to do real work. They get real annoyed when the interface for their real tools change - thus making it more difficult to do this experiment. Best regards, Andreas Hindborg
