Messages in this thread Patch in this message | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:35:40 -0800 | From | Boqun Feng <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] rust: cred: add Rust abstraction for `struct cred` |
| |
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:34:29PM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote: > Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 11:59:47AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote: > > [...] > > > @@ -151,6 +152,21 @@ pub fn as_ptr(&self) -> *mut bindings::file { > > > self.0.get() > > > } > > > > > > + /// Returns the credentials of the task that originally opened the file. > > > + pub fn cred(&self) -> &Credential { > > > > I wonder whether it would be helpful if we use explicit lifetime here: > > > > pub fn cred<'file>(&'file self) -> &'file Credential > > > > It might be easier for people to get. For example, the lifetime of the > > returned Credential reference is constrainted by 'file, the lifetime of > > the file reference. > > > > But yes, maybe need to hear others' feedback first. > > > > Regards, > > Boqun > > That would trigger a compiler warning because the lifetime is > unnecessary. >
We can disable that warning if people need the information. Code is mostly for reading, less often for compilation and changes.
> The safety comment explains what the signature means. I think that > should be enough. >
For someone who has a good understanding of Rust lifetime (and the elision), yes. But I'm wondering whether all the people feel the same way.
Regards, Boqun
> Alice
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |