On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 1:54 PM FUJITA Tomonori
[off-list ref] wrote:
Sorry, I totally misunderstand your intention. I thought that the PHY
abstractions needs to be merged with your patch together.
I'll drop your patch in the next version and focus on my patches.
No harm done! I understand you were trying to help, and I apologize if
I sounded too harsh.
Your abstractions are not blocked on this patch -- they could go in
without this, that is why I suggested marking this one as RFC and
putting it at the end of the series. The exhaustiveness check here is
an extra feature that prevents a class of bugs, which is great, but it
does not really affect the abstractions, i.e. there is no unsoundness
in your code whether this patch is in or not.
I will send the patch soon, and assuming it lands, then you can start
using the feature if you wish. I would recommend basing your patches
on top of that patch (or `rust-next` when the patch lands), so that
your PHY series contains the addition of `check_phy_state`.
Cheers,
Miguel