On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 1:45 PM Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't think we ever discussed this? I don't think so -- we discussed other things related to 2025H1 the last meeting. Perhaps you/we can bring it up in the next one? > Version 3 of this patch enabled the unstable feature `sync_unsafe_cell` [1] to > avoid `static mut` variables as suggested by Trevor Tross and Benno Lossin [2]. > > As we are moving closer to a new edition, it is now clear that `static mut` is > not being deprecated in the 2024 edition as first anticipated [3]. > > Still, `SyncUnsafeCell` allows us to use safe code when referring to the > parameter value: > What do you think? The justification seems fairly weak... Unless we are fairly confident the API will be stable (even if not stabilized right now), I am not sure why we would want to do this right now. Can we provide our own `SyncUnsafeCell` instead in the meantime, if you want to keep the advantages? > Returning an error and `pr_warn!` is doable. As far as I can tell, we do > not have `WARN_ON_ONCE` yet? Please see https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20241126-pr_once_macros-v4-0-410b8ca9643e@xxxxxxx/ in case it helps. > It turns out we can! That is what I expected :) Thanks! Cheers, Miguel
