Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:56:25 +0200 | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] rust: zpool: add abstraction for zpool drivers | | From | "Benno Lossin" <> |
| |
On Thu Aug 28, 2025 at 9:22 AM CEST, Vitaly Wool wrote: > > > On 8/27/25 17:59, Benno Lossin wrote: >> On Wed Aug 27, 2025 at 4:24 PM CEST, Vitaly Wool wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 26, 2025, at 7:02 PM, Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat Aug 23, 2025 at 3:05 PM CEST, Vitaly Wool wrote: >>>>> +pub trait ZpoolDriver { >>>>> + /// Opaque Rust representation of `struct zpool`. >>>>> + type Pool: ForeignOwnable; >>>> >>>> I think this is the same question that Danilo asked a few versions ago, >>>> but why do we need this? Why can't we just use `Self` instead? >>> >>> It’s convenient to use it in the backend implementation, like in the toy example supplied in the documentation part: >>> >>> +/// struct MyZpool { >>> +/// name: &'static CStr, >>> +/// bytes_used: AtomicU64, >>> +/// } >>> … >>> +/// impl ZpoolDriver for MyZpoolDriver { >>> +/// type Pool = KBox<MyZpool>; >>> >>> Does that make sense? >> >> No, why can't it just be like this: >> >> struct MyZpool { >> name: &'static CStr, >> bytes_used: AtomicU64, >> } >> >> struct MyZpoolDriver; >> >> impl ZpoolDriver for MyZpoolDriver { >> type Error = Infallible; >> >> fn create(name: &'static CStr) -> impl PinInit<Self, Self::Error> { >> MyZpool { name, bytes_used: AtomicU64::new(0) } >> } >> >> fn malloc(&mut self, size: usize, gfp: Flags, _nid: NumaNode) -> Result<usize> { >> let mut pow: usize = 0; >> for n in 6..=PAGE_SHIFT { >> if size <= 1 << n { >> pow = n; >> break; >> } >> } >> match pow { >> 0 => Err(EINVAL), >> _ => { >> let vec = KVec::<u64>::with_capacity(1 << (pow - 3), gfp)?; >> let (ptr, _len, _cap) = vec.into_raw_parts(); >> self.bytes_used.fetch_add(1 << pow, Ordering::Relaxed); >> Ok(ptr as usize | (pow - 6)) >> } >> } >> } >> >> unsafe fn free(&self, handle: usize) { >> let n = (handle & 0x3F) + 3; >> let uptr = handle & !0x3F; >> >> // SAFETY: >> // - uptr comes from handle which points to the KVec allocation from `alloc`. >> // - size == capacity and is coming from the first 6 bits of handle. >> let vec = unsafe { KVec::<u64>::from_raw_parts(uptr as *mut u64, 1 << n, 1 << n) }; >> drop(vec); >> self.bytes_used.fetch_sub(1 << (n + 3), Ordering::Relaxed); >> } >> >> unsafe fn read_begin(&self, handle: usize) -> NonNull<u8> { >> let uptr = handle & !0x3F; >> // SAFETY: uptr points to a memory area allocated by KVec >> unsafe { NonNull::new_unchecked(uptr as *mut u8) } >> } >> >> unsafe fn read_end(&self, _handle: usize, _handle_mem: NonNull<u8>) {} >> >> unsafe fn write(&self, handle: usize, handle_mem: NonNull<u8>, mem_len: usize) { >> let uptr = handle & !0x3F; >> // SAFETY: handle_mem is a valid non-null pointer provided by zpool, uptr points to >> // a KVec allocated in `malloc` and is therefore also valid. >> unsafe { >> copy_nonoverlapping(handle_mem.as_ptr().cast(), uptr as *mut c_void, mem_len) >> }; >> } >> >> fn total_pages(&self) -> u64 { >> self.bytes_used.load(Ordering::Relaxed) >> PAGE_SHIFT >> } >> } > > It can indeed but then the ZpoolDriver trait will have to be extended > with functions like into_raw() and from_raw(), because zpool expects > *mut c_void, so on the Adapter side it will look like > > extern "C" fn create_(name: *const c_uchar, gfp: u32) -> *mut c_void { > // SAFETY: the memory pointed to by name is guaranteed by zpool > to be a valid string > let pool = unsafe { T::create(CStr::from_char_ptr(name), > Flags::from_raw(gfp)) }; > match pool { > Err(_) => null_mut(), > Ok(p) => T::into_raw(p).cast(), > } > } > > The question is, why does this make it better?
No, thanks for sharing that function. Then the question becomes, do you really need `ForeignOwnable`? Or is `KBox` enough? Do you really want people to use `Arc<MyZPool>`? Because `BorrowedMut` of `Arc` is the same as it's `Borrowed` variant (it's read-only after all).
If you can get away with just `Box` (you might want people to choose their allocator, which is fine IMO), then I'd do so.
--- Cheers, Benno
|  |