On 12/16/24 6:02 AM, Andreas Hindborg wrote: >>> 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. I'd have to agree with that - yes, null_blk doesn't host any real applications, but it is the backbone of a lot of testing that blktests and others do. Hence it's very real in that sense, and the rust version of null_blk should provide and mimic how the C version works for ease of testing. If this was a new driver where no prior art exists in terms of users and API, then I'd certainly agree with Greg. But that's not the case here. -- Jens Axboe
