Re: [PATCH v10 00/10] Fix missing fops.owner in Rust DRM/misc abstractions

On 8/13/26 17:32, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 1:57 AM Gary Guo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> IMO this is the correct way, also consistent with
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/[email protected]/
>>
>> It might make sense to add this to rust-next.
> Yeah, it is also consistent (in the sense of adding a fallback) with
> the other fix I added when applying the series for the `macros`
> doctest; and the `kernel` crate is not an actual module yet.
>
> I guess yet another solution would be to have an even more local
> fallback, but that would be too local in my opinion, i.e. we will want
> to use it elsewhere sooner or later.
>
> So I could fold [2] into commit 98f256e27262, but a commit on top is
> fine, I will reference that commit from the new one instead.
>
> Ok, done -- Danilo, I took your diff and converted it into a proper
> commit, please double-check you are OK with the Signed-off-by:
>
>    ec6fcf8a175a ("rust: kernel: add `LocalModule` fallback for
> `#[vtable]` `impl`s")

I was just looking at the difference between the doctest and in-crate
`#[kunit_tests]` test paths — thanks for taking care of this.

I'll look into [3] once the new build system lands.

Best regards,
Alvin

>
> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel