> On Nov 11, 2025, at 7:42 PM, Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed Nov 12, 2025 at 8:02 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> On 11/10/2025 8:43 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> [..]
>>>
>>>> + |cmd| {
>>>> + self.current_offset += cmd.size_bytes();
>>>> + self.cmds_processed += 1;
>>>> + Some(Ok(cmd))
>>>> + },
>>>> + )
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +impl<'a, 'b> IntoIterator for &'b GspSequencer<'a> {
>>>> + type Item = Result<GspSeqCmd>;
>>>> + type IntoIter = GspSeqIter<'b>;
>>>> +
>>>> + fn into_iter(self) -> Self::IntoIter {
>>>> + let cmd_data = &self.seq_info.cmd_data[..];
>>>> +
>>>> + GspSeqIter {
>>>> + cmd_data,
>>>> + current_offset: 0,
>>>> + total_cmds: self.seq_info.info.cmdIndex,
>>>> + cmds_processed: 0,
>>>> + dev: self.dev,
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> You can do without this implementation by just having an `iter` method
>>> returning the iterator where appropriate (in the current version this
>>> would be `GspSequencer`, but I suggest moving that to the
>>> `GspSequencerInfo/GspSequence`).
>>>
>>
>> If I do that, it becomes ugly on the caller side.
>>
>> Caller side becomes:
>> for cmd_result in sequencer.seq_info.iter(&sequencer.dev) {
>> ..
>> }
>>
>> instead of the current:
>> for cmd_result in sequencer {
>> ..
>> }
>
> That's if you need `dev` for iteration. Since it is only used for
> logging error messages, I'd suggest doing without it and returning a
> distinct error code (or a dedicated error type that implements Display
> or Debug and converts to the kernel's Error) that the caller can then
> print, removing the need to pass `dev`.
True.
>
>>
>> Does it work for you if I remove IntoIterator and just have
>> GspSequencer::iter()
>> return the iterator?
>>
>> Then the caller becomes:
>>
>> for cmd_result in sequencer.iter() {
>> ..
>> }
>>
>> Although I think IntoIterator makes a lot of sense here too, and there are
>> other
>> usages of it in rust kernel code. But the sequencer.iter() would work for me.
>
> I guess it's a matter of personal taste, but I tend to prefer `iter`
> methods because they are more visible than an implementation on a
> reference type, and also because they allow us to have different kinds of
> iterators for the same type (not that this is useful here :)).
Ok, so I take it that you are ok with sequencer.iter() for the v4. The
sequencer iterates through a collection of commands so that makes sense. But
let me know if you are in disagreement about this.
Thanks.
