6.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@xxxxxxxxxx> commit 04866494e936d041fd196d3a36aecd979e4ef078 upstream. Discuss `#[expect(...)]` in the Lints sections of the coding guidelines document, which is an upcoming feature in Rust 1.81.0, and explain that it is generally to be preferred over `allow` unless there is a reason not to use it (e.g. conditional compilation being involved). Tested-by: Gary Guo <gary@xxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Gary Guo <gary@xxxxxxxxxxx> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240904204347.168520-19-ojeda@xxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 110 insertions(+) --- a/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst +++ b/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst @@ -262,6 +262,116 @@ default (i.e. outside ``W=`` levels). In false positives but that are otherwise quite useful to keep enabled to catch potential mistakes. +On top of that, Rust provides the ``expect`` attribute which takes this further. +It makes the compiler warn if the warning was not produced. For instance, the +following will ensure that, when ``f()`` is called somewhere, we will have to +remove the attribute: + +.. code-block:: rust + + #[expect(dead_code)] + fn f() {} + +If we do not, we get a warning from the compiler:: + + warning: this lint expectation is unfulfilled + --> x.rs:3:10 + | + 3 | #[expect(dead_code)] + | ^^^^^^^^^ + | + = note: `#[warn(unfulfilled_lint_expectations)]` on by default + +This means that ``expect``\ s do not get forgotten when they are not needed, which +may happen in several situations, e.g.: + +- Temporary attributes added while developing. + +- Improvements in lints in the compiler, Clippy or custom tools which may + remove a false positive. + +- When the lint is not needed anymore because it was expected that it would be + removed at some point, such as the ``dead_code`` example above. + +It also increases the visibility of the remaining ``allow``\ s and reduces the +chance of misapplying one. + +Thus prefer ``except`` over ``allow`` unless: + +- The lint attribute is intended to be temporary, e.g. while developing. + +- Conditional compilation triggers the warning in some cases but not others. + + If there are only a few cases where the warning triggers (or does not + trigger) compared to the total number of cases, then one may consider using + a conditional ``expect`` (i.e. ``cfg_attr(..., expect(...))``). Otherwise, + it is likely simpler to just use ``allow``. + +- Inside macros, when the different invocations may create expanded code that + triggers the warning in some cases but not in others. + +- When code may trigger a warning for some architectures but not others, such + as an ``as`` cast to a C FFI type. + +As a more developed example, consider for instance this program: + +.. code-block:: rust + + fn g() {} + + fn main() { + #[cfg(CONFIG_X)] + g(); + } + +Here, function ``g()`` is dead code if ``CONFIG_X`` is not set. Can we use +``expect`` here? + +.. code-block:: rust + + #[expect(dead_code)] + fn g() {} + + fn main() { + #[cfg(CONFIG_X)] + g(); + } + +This would emit a lint if ``CONFIG_X`` is set, since it is not dead code in that +configuration. Therefore, in cases like this, we cannot use ``expect`` as-is. + +A simple possibility is using ``allow``: + +.. code-block:: rust + + #[allow(dead_code)] + fn g() {} + + fn main() { + #[cfg(CONFIG_X)] + g(); + } + +An alternative would be using a conditional ``expect``: + +.. code-block:: rust + + #[cfg_attr(not(CONFIG_X), expect(dead_code))] + fn g() {} + + fn main() { + #[cfg(CONFIG_X)] + g(); + } + +This would ensure that, if someone introduces another call to ``g()`` somewhere +(e.g. unconditionally), then it would be spotted that it is not dead code +anymore. However, the ``cfg_attr`` is more complex than a simple ``allow``. + +Therefore, it is likely that it is not worth using conditional ``expect``\ s when +more than one or two configurations are involved or when the lint may be +triggered due to non-local changes (such as ``dead_code``). + For more information about diagnostics in Rust, please see: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/reference/attributes/diagnostics.html
