Greg KH <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 02:00:17PM +0200, Andreas Hindborg wrote: >> "Greg KH" <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2026 at 09:02:53AM -0400, Wenzhao Liao wrote: >> >> Sorry for the earlier noise and for our unfamiliarity with parts of the >> >> kernel submission process, which created extra burden for maintainers. >> >> >> >> This patch adds boolean module parameter support to the Rust `module!` >> >> parameter path. >> >> >> >> It implements `ModuleParam` for `bool` and wires `PARAM_OPS_BOOL` into >> >> the Rust module parameter machinery, so Rust-side parsing reuses the >> >> existing kernel `kstrtobool()` semantics through `kstrtobool_bytes()` >> >> instead of introducing a separate parser. A boolean parameter is also >> >> added to `samples/rust/rust_minimal.rs` as a small reference user and >> >> build-time validation point. >> > >> > What driver needs this feature? Module options should be very rare >> > going forward as they are 1990's technology and do not fit the "modern" >> > kernel model at all. >> >> Rust null block uses module parameters, and was requested to use proper >> boolean parsing rather than overloading u8 parsing for boolean >> parameters [1]. >> >> Best regards, >> Andreas Hindborg >> >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/[email protected]/ >> > > Ok, then that needs to be said somewhere, and ideally, have the code > that uses that as part of the patch series.
It should be mentioned for sure, with a link to the code. I'm not sure including this patch in the rnull driver series is the right approach. That series is a really long already. I think using the b4 dependency feature for dependencies is a better approach for marking dependencies. I understand that you want to see APIs in context of use, that makes sense. Best regards, Andreas Hindborg
