On 5/4/23 20:36, Bart Van Assche wrote:

On 5/4/23 11:15, Andreas Hindborg wrote:

quoted

If it is still unclear to you why this effort was started, please do let
me know and I shall try to clarify further :)

It seems like I was too polite in my previous email. What I meant is that
rewriting code is useful if it provides a clear advantage to the users of
a driver. For null_blk, the users are kernel developers. The code that has
been posted is the start of a rewrite of the null_blk driver. The benefits
of this rewrite (making low-level memory errors less likely) do not 
outweigh
the risks that this effort will introduce functional or performance 
regressions.

I have to disagree here. While the null_blk driver in itself is 
certainly not _that_ useful, it does provide a good sounding board if 
all the design principles of the linux block layer can be adequately 
expressed in Rust.

And by posting this driver you just proved that, and we all have a 
better understanding what would be needed to convert old or create new 
drivers.

But I guess we'll have a longer discussion at LSF :-)

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke                Kernel Storage Architect
hare@suse.de                              +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew
Myers, Andrew McDonald, Martje Boudien Moerman