On Tue, 2022-05-24 at 20:07 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 10:33 PM Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > There's no description what the patch does. > > I am not sure what you mean. Both the subject and the last paragraph > describe what the patch does, while the rest gives the rationale > behind it. > > Cheers, > Miguel The honest answer: I don't actually remember what I was thinking (other stuff stole my focus) but my comment neither makes much sense to me. Please just ignore it, and apologies for causing confusion. There's something I'm looking into in my spare time right now. I'm experimenting with interfacing keyring types to Rust. The first step, I guess, is to provide a Rust abstraction for assoc_array. I've skimmed through the patch set and have now *rough* idea of patterns and techniques. My opens are more on the process side of things since there's no yet mainline subtree. If I send a patch or patch sets, would this be a good workflow: 1. RFC tag. 2. In the cover letter denote the patch set version, which was used the baseline. Linux keyring is without argument a kind of subsystem that would hugely benefit of the Rust work, as it is both user space facing nd handling a vast amount of user's confidential data. BR, Jarkko
