On Sun, Jun 8, 2025 at 5:06 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sando...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 5:37 PM Tamir Duberstein <tam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > - bindings::BLK_STS_OK as _
> > + bindings::BLK_STS_OK as u8
>
> > - unsafe { bindings::blk_mq_end_request(request_ptr,
> > bindings::BLK_STS_OK as _) };
> > + unsafe { bindings::blk_mq_end_request(request_ptr,
> > bindings::BLK_STS_OK as u8) };
>
> For these two: `BLK_STS_OK` was discussed in a previous version, but
> why are we not using `blk_status_t` type instead?
>
> We are even already using it in the first case, and in the second it
> is the parameter's type.
>
> > -/// # use kernel::{bindings, c_str, device::Device, devres::Devres,
> > io::{Io, IoRaw}};
> > +/// # use kernel::{bindings, c_str, device::Device, devres::Devres,
> > ffi::c_void, io::{Io, IoRaw}};
>
> For v11 this can be removed since it is now in the prelude. There may
> others that can be removed too (I would not add an import just to use
> it in these patches, but if the prelude is already imported, then we
> should use it).
>
> > - result.minor = bindings::MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR as _;
> > + result.minor = bindings::MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR as i32;
>
> Similarly here, shouldn't we use `c_int`?
>
> i.e. it is the one in the C side, not the "resolved" `i32` that the
> compiler suggests.
>
> > - bindings::wq_misc_consts_WORK_CPU_UNBOUND as _,
> > + bindings::wq_misc_consts_WORK_CPU_UNBOUND as i32,
>
> Similarly, this should probably be `c_int` since that is the
> parameter's type, right?
Yeah, I think these are good calls - I'll fix it in v11. When would
you like me to send it?
