On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 04:01:44PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 3/2/26 11:33, Alice Ryhl wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 11:27:40AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > >> On 3/2/26 11:01, Alice Ryhl wrote: > >>> > >>> Well, rustfmt comes with the compiler, and it would be ideal to build > >>> test changes before sending them :) > >> > >> At least on Ubuntu on my notebook where I do most of the coding+patch > >> submissions it's a separate package? > >> > >> I do all my builds on a different (more powerful) machine where the > >> whole rust machinery's in place. Further, build bots that run on my > >> private branches did not report any issues. > > > > There are some build bots that check for rustfmt, though not all of > > them. > > > >>> But no worries, I took care of testing it. Thanks for taking the time to > >>> update the Rust code as well. > >> > >> I just did an allyesconfig and it does not report any warnings. > >> > >> So apparently, rustfmt problems not result in the compiler complaining? > >> > >> Or something else is off here that rust/kernel/mm/virt.rs won't get > >> compiled on my machine, even with allyesconfig. I can definitely see > >> some RUSTC stuff happening in the logs, like > >> > >> RUSTC L rust/kernel.o > >> > >> Thanks for the review and for pointing out rustfmt! > > > > Similar to kerneldoc and other similar targets, formatting isn't checked > > in the normal build, but make can be invoked on the rustfmtcheck target > > to check it. > > Thanks adding that to my cross-compile chain.
Awesome, thanks! It's not relevant in this patch, but another thing that may be useful is to add CLIPPY=1 to the make invocation when building normally. This causes additional warnings to be checked using a tool called clippy. Alice
