Re: [PATCH -next] rust: fwctl: replace `__pinned_init` with `raw_try_init`

"Gary Guo" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-next,org.kernel.vger.rust-for-linux
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Tue Aug 18, 2026 at 2:20 PM BST, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 02:11:57PM +0100, Gary Guo wrote:
>> On Tue Aug 18, 2026 at 1:55 PM BST, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 12:53:50PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> >> Commit
>> >> 
>> >>   ea7da3116015 ("rust: treewide: replace `__pinned_init` with `raw_[try_]init`")
>> >> 
>> >> from the pin-init tree replaced the method before removing it, but commit
>> >> 
>> >>   e052daab94ee ("rust: introduce abstractions for fwctl")
>> >> 
>> >> from the fwctl tree added a new use.
>> >> 
>> >> Thus replace that one as well to fix this error in next-20260817:
> [E0599]: no method named `__pinned_init` found for associated type `impl pin_init::PinInit<T, error::Error>` in the current scope
>> >>        --> rust/kernel/fwctl.rs:465:49
>> >>         |
>> >>     465 |                 match T::open(device, reg_data).__pinned_init(uctx_ptr) {
>> >>         |                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ method not found in `impl pin_init::PinInit<T, error::Error>`
>> >
>> > If you delete functions like this then you break everyone elses branches :|
>> 
>> I'm not sure how this break everyone elses' branches? It only breaks linux-next
>> but that's why it exists in the first place, to catch tree
>> conflicts.
>
> linux-next is to catch missed things, you shouldn't use it to
> purposefully cause conflicts during the merge window..

That is an accusation that I find unacceptable. The API removal commit lands in
linux-next almost 10 days before you pick the Rust fwctl series. The conflict
between rust and fwctl tree doesn't exist in next-20260814, the last linux-next
tag before Miguel sent the PR to Linus. How come I am purposefully causing
conflicts?

> So for example introduce your new API and do some conversions, then
> remove the old API down the road after the merge window is a more
> expected work flow.

I'd happily keep the old API for an additional cycle before removing it, if I
knew that there'll be additional users. However I couldn't predict that new
users will be added late in the cycle after I sent my pull request.

Best,
Gary
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.