On Sun, Mar 01, 2026 at 04:18:15PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Sun Mar 1, 2026 at 1:06 PM CET, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 07:40:26PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >> On Wed Feb 4, 2026 at 9:40 PM CET, Daniel Almeida wrote:
> >> > This implementation dispatches any work enqueued on ARef<drm::Device<T>>
> >> > to
> >> > its driver-provided handler. It does so by building upon the newly-added
> >> > ARef<T> support in workqueue.rs in order to call into the driver
> >> > implementations for work_container_of and raw_get_work.
> >> >
> >> > This is notably important for work items that need access to the drm
> >> > device, as it was not possible to enqueue work on a ARef<drm::Device<T>>
> >> > previously without failing the orphan rule.
> >> >
> >> > The current implementation needs T::Data to live inline with drm::Device
> >> > in
> >> > order for work_container_of to function. This restriction is already
> >> > captured by the trait bounds. Drivers that need to share their ownership
> >> > of
> >> > T::Data may trivially get around this:
> >> >
> >> > // Lives inline in drm::Device
> >> > struct DataWrapper {
> >> > work: ...,
> >> > // Heap-allocated, shared ownership.
> >> > data: Arc<DriverData>,
> >> > }
> >>
> >> IIUC, this is how it's supposed to be used:
> >>
> >> #[pin_data]
> >> struct MyData {
> >> #[pin]
> >> work: Work<drm::Device<MyDriver>>,
> >> value: u32,
> >> }
> >>
> >> impl_has_work! {
> >> impl HasWork<drm::Device<MyDriver>> for MyData { self.work }
> >> }
> >>
> >> impl WorkItem for MyData {
> >> type Pointer = ARef<drm::Device<MyDriver>>;
> >>
> >> fn run(dev: ARef<drm::Device<MyDriver>>) {
> >> dev_info!(dev, "value = {}\n", dev.value);
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> The reason the WorkItem is implemented for MyData, rather than
> >> drm::Device<MyDriver> (which would be a bit more straight forward) is the
> >> orphan
> >> rule, I assume.
> >
> > This characterizes it as a workaround for the orphan rule. I don't think
> > that's fair. Implementing WorkItem for MyDriver directly is the
> > idiomatic way to do it, in my opinion.
>
> The trait bound is T::Data: WorkItem, not T: drm::Driver + WorkItem.
> Implementing WorkItem for MyDriver seems more straight forward to me.
I missed the part about `for MyData` vs `for MyDriver`. Since you
talked about the orphan rule I assumed you wanted the driver to
implement it for `drm::Device<MyDriver>` directly, which is what the
orphan rule would prohibit, rather than for `MyDriver`.
In any case, I do think it makes sense that you would implement it on
the struct that actually contains the `struct work_struct`.
> >> Now, the whole purpose of this is that a driver can implement WorkItem for
> >> MyData without needing an additional struct (and allocation), such as:
> >>
> >> #[pin_data]
> >> struct MyWork {
> >> #[pin]
> >> work: Work<Self>,
> >> dev: drm::Device<MyDriver>,
> >> }
> >>
> >> How is this supposed to be done when you want multiple different
> >> implementations
> >> of WorkItem that have a drm::Device<MyDriver> as payload?
> >>
> >> Fall back to various struct MyWork? Add in an "artificial" type state for
> >> MyData
> >> with some phantom data, so you can implement HasWork for MyData<Work0>,
> >> MyData<Work1>, etc.?
> >
> > You cannot configure the code that is executed on a per-call basis
> > because the code called by a work item is a function pointer stored
> > inside the `struct work_struct`. And it can't be changed after
> > initialization of the field.
> >
> > So either you must store that info in a separate field. This is what
> > Binder does, see drivers/android/binder/process.rs for an example.
> >
> > impl workqueue::WorkItem for Process {
> > type Pointer = Arc<Process>;
> >
> > fn run(me: Arc<Self>) {
> > let defer;
> > {
> > let mut inner = me.inner.lock();
> > defer = inner.defer_work;
> > inner.defer_work = 0;
> > }
> >
> > if defer & PROC_DEFER_FLUSH != 0 {
> > me.deferred_flush();
> > }
> > if defer & PROC_DEFER_RELEASE != 0 {
> > me.deferred_release();
> > }
> > }
> > }
>
> Ok, so this would be a switch to decide what to do when a single work is run,
> i.e. it is not for running multiple work.
Yeah.
But in any case, a single `struct work_struct` can't be used to schedule
multiple work items. It only has one prev/next pointer pair.
> > Or you must have multiple different fields of type Work, each with a
> > different function pointer stored inside it.
>
> This sounds it works for running multiple work, but I wonder how enqueue()
> knows
> which work should be run in this case? I.e. what do we do with:
>
> impl_has_work! {
> impl HasWork<drm::Device<MyDriver>> for MyData { self.work }
> }
Both WorkItem and HasWork are generic over an ID integer. You can
specify it to disambiguiate.
Alice
