Re: [RFC PATCH 03/11] rust: block: introduce `kernel::block::mq` module

From: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me>
To: "Andreas Hindborg (Samsung)" <nmi@metaspace.dk>
Cc: "Jens Axboe" <axboe@kernel.dk>, "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@lst.de>,
	"Keith Busch" <kbusch@kernel.org>,
	"Damien Le Moal" <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>,
	"Hannes Reinecke" <hare@suse.de>,
	lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	"Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>,
	"Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@kernel.org>,
	"Alex Gaynor" <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
	"Wedson Almeida Filho" <wedsonaf@gmail.com>,
	"Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	"Gary Guo" <gary@garyguo.net>,
	"Björn Roy Baron" <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gost.dev@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/11] rust: block: introduce `kernel::block::mq` module
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 16:14:58 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <104a22f7-a5bb-4fb6-9ce9-aa2d4e63417f@proton.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87il3kjgk0.fsf@metaspace.dk>

Hi Andreas,

just so you know, I received this email today, so it was very late,
since the send date is January 12.

On 12.01.24 10:18, Andreas Hindborg (Samsung) wrote:
> 
> Hi Benno,
> 
> Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me> writes:
> 
> <...>
> 
>>> diff --git a/rust/kernel/block/mq/gen_disk.rs b/rust/kernel/block/mq/gen_disk.rs
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..50496af15bbf
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/rust/kernel/block/mq/gen_disk.rs
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>> +
>>> +//! GenDisk abstraction
>>> +//!
>>> +//! C header: [`include/linux/blkdev.h`](../../include/linux/blkdev.h)
>>> +//! C header: [`include/linux/blk_mq.h`](../../include/linux/blk_mq.h)
>>> +
>>> +use crate::block::mq::{raw_writer::RawWriter, Operations, TagSet};
>>> +use crate::{
>>> +    bindings, error::from_err_ptr, error::Result, sync::Arc, types::ForeignOwnable,
>>> +    types::ScopeGuard,
>>> +};
>>> +use core::fmt::{self, Write};
>>> +
>>> +/// A generic block device
>>> +///
>>> +/// # Invariants
>>> +///
>>> +///  - `gendisk` must always point to an initialized and valid `struct gendisk`.
>>> +pub struct GenDisk<T: Operations> {
>>> +    _tagset: Arc<TagSet<T>>,
>>> +    gendisk: *mut bindings::gendisk,
>>
>> Why are these two fields not embedded? Shouldn't the user decide where
>> to allocate?
> 
> The `TagSet` can be shared between multiple `GenDisk`. Using an `Arc`
> seems resonable?
> 
> For the `gendisk` field, the allocation is done by C and the address
> must be stable. We are owning the pointee and must drop it when it goes out
> of scope. I could do this:
> 
> #[repr(transparent)]
> struct GenDisk(Opaque<bindings::gendisk>);
> 
> struct UniqueGenDiskRef {
>      _tagset: Arc<TagSet<T>>,
>      gendisk: Pin<&'static mut GenDisk>,
> 
> }
> 
> but it seems pointless. `struct GenDisk` would not be pub in that case. What do you think?

Hmm, I am a bit confused as to how you usually use a `struct gendisk`.
You said that a `TagSet` might be shared between multiple `GenDisk`s,
but that is not facilitated by the C side?

Is it the case that on the C side you create a struct containing a
tagset and a gendisk for every block device you want to represent?
And you decided for the Rust abstractions that you want to have only a
single generic struct for any block device, distinguished by the generic
parameter?
I think these kinds of details would be nice to know. Not only for
reviewers, but also for veterans of the C APIs.

-- 
Cheers,
Benno