lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] rust: locks: Add `get_mut` method to `Lock`
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 at 11:22, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 3:13 PM Mathys-Gasnier via B4 Relay
> <devnull+mathys35.gasnier.gmail.com@kernel.org> wrote:
> > + /// Gets the data contained in the lock
> > + /// Having a mutable reference to the lock guarantees that no other threads have access to the lock.
> > + /// Making it safe to get a mutable reference to the lock content.
> > + pub fn get_mut(&mut self) -> &mut T {
> > + self.data.get_mut()
> > + }
>
> It's impossible to call this method. You can never have a mutable
> reference to a Linux mutex because we pin our locks. At most, you can
> have a Pin<&mut Self>.

Perhaps you meant to say that it's impossible to call this method
without unsafe blocks? From a `Pin<&mut T>`, we can call
`get_unchecked_mut` to get an `&mut T`.

This is addressing issue 924 opened by Björn some time back. The idea
here is that if there's a path where avoiding the lock/unlock calls
(which are expensive because of the memory barriers) is performance
critical, we can do it as long as we use an unsafe block.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 15:05    [W:1.071 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site