On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 02:29:54PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: [..] > > > > I would suggest taking a look at our website and the links there (like > > issue #2) -- what we are doing upstream Rust is documented. > > ...and my question was asked before reading through issue #2. So your > and Danilo's responses seem to be saying that there is already some > understanding that this is an area that could be improved. > > Good! > > I believe "issue #2" refers to this, right? > > https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/2 > > That's going to take some time to figure out if it interects > what I was requesting, but I'll have a go at it.
Indeed, kudos to rust-for-linux community for working on missing Rust features and on pinning itself. > > > > (Danilo gave you a direct link, but I mention it this way because > > there are a lot of things going on, and it is worth a look and perhaps > > you may find something interesting you could help with). > > > > > except to satisfy paranoia > > > > Using unsafe code everywhere (or introducing unsoundness or UB for > > convenience) would defeat much of the Rust for Linux exercise. > > > > Yes. It's only "paranoia" if the code is bug-free. So Rust itself > naturally will look "a little" paranoid, that's core to its mission. :) This seems to be taken out-of-context, I said "paranoia" mainly because I am not sure if excessive use of pinning may tend to cause other problems. The "paranoia" is about over-usage of pinning. Personally, I don't prefer to pin stuff in my code until I absolutely need to, or when I start having needs for pinning, like using spinlocks. Maybe I am wrong, but the way I learnt Rust, data movement is baked into it. I am not yet confident pinning will not constraint Rust code gen -- but that could just be a part of my learning journey that I have to convince myself it is Ok to do so in advance of actually requiring it even if you simply hypothetically anticipate needing it (as Danilo pointed out that in practice this is not an issue and I do tend to agree with Miguel and Danilo because they are usually right :-D). I am researching counter examples :-) thanks, - Joel
