On Fri Feb 20, 2026 at 3:07 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On 2/19/2026 11:24 AM, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >> On Thu Feb 19, 2026 at 4:44 PM CET, Joel Fernandes wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2/19/2026 10:27 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote: >>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 12:21:56PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>>>> On Wed Feb 18, 2026 at 9:55 PM CET, Joel Fernandes wrote: >>>>>> +RUST TO C LIST INTERFACES >>>>> Maybe this should just be "RUST [FFI]" instead (in case Alex and you want >>>>> to >>>>> sign up for looking after FFI helper infrastructure in general)? >>>> >>>> Good idea, done. >>> >>> Actually, I am not sure we want to commit to entire RUST FFI infra though >>> its >>> pretty tiny right now. Most of this infra right now is clist, let us start >>> with >>> keeping it as is "RUST TO C LIST INTERFACES" ? Or we could make it "C LIST >>> INTERFACES [RUST]" sections. >> >> I feel like it makes a bit more sense to have an entry for the entire class >> of >> "RUST [FFI]" infrastructure. >> >> I could imagine that we will find quite some more cases where an FFI >> abstraction >> layer makes sense; at some point it might even go the other way around. >> >> Once that happens, I think it would be good to have people looking after >> intermediate FFI layers in general. But it does not have to be you of course. >> >> Maybe we can create the "RUST [FFI]" entry already with the following >> constraint: >> >> RUST [FFI] >> M: Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> (CLIST) >> M: Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> (CLIST) >> L: [email protected] >> S: Maintained >> F: rust/kernel/ffi/ > > Yeah, this is a good idea. I am Ok with that. Alex/Miguel, you're Ok with > this too? > > If all in agreement, I can make this change for next revision.
Sure (once we agree on what the entry should be named), that should be low-bandwidth anyway as folks will be discouraged to use this module whenever possible anyway. :)
