Fix up some mutability warts on datasec skeleton accessors #611
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
It's not particularly user friendly to only have exclusive shared datasec accessor variants available, as that can lead to unnecessary borrow conflicts. With this change we revamp the generation logic to generate shared and exclusive accessors when possible. Refs: #606 Signed-off-by: Daniel Müller <[email protected]>
When we create a skeleton with a getter for an immutable map, we should be able to use a non-exclusive receiver (&self) instead of an exclusive one (&mut self). Using the latter unconditionally can be the cause of unnecessary borrow conflicts. Refs: #606 Signed-off-by: Daniel Müller <[email protected]>
There is not too much of a point in passing in the desired mutability to gen_skel_prog_getter() when all call sites invoke it with both true and false. Move the logic for dealing with mutability into the function itself to shield callers from the need to care. Signed-off-by: Daniel Müller <[email protected]>
There is not too much of a point in passing in the desired mutability to gen_skel_map_getters() when all call sites invoke it with both true and false. Move the logic for dealing with mutability into the function itself to shield callers from the need to care. Signed-off-by: Daniel Müller <[email protected]>
There is not too much of a point in passing in the desired mutability to gen_skel_map_defs() when all call sites invoke it with both true and false. Move the logic for dealing with mutability into the function itself to shield callers from the need to care. Signed-off-by: Daniel Müller <[email protected]>
anakryiko
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2023
libbpf-cargo/src/gen/mod.rs
Outdated
| unsafe {{ | ||
| std::mem::transmute::<*mut std::ffi::c_void, &'_ {mutability} {struct_name}>( | ||
| std::mem::transmute::<*mut std::ffi::c_void, &{mutability} {struct_name}>( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is it intentional that we transmute to *mut c_void for both mutabilities?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure which commit you looked at/commented on, but in the end mutability would be just the empty string for the "shared" accessor. So yeah, it's intentional.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, I commented on commit #2 ("Use non-exclusive receiver for immutable datasec getters"), and it will later be replaced with {ptr_suffix}, never mind.
|
Uhm...I can't rebase and resolve the conflict for , so I am going to recreate the pull request with updated changes and then merge. Thanks for the review. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Please see individual commits for descriptions