On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 13:05:30 +0900 (JST)
FUJITA Tomonori [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 16:20:48 +0000
Gary Guo [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

+fn might_sleep(loc: &Location<'_>) {
+    // SAFETY: FFI call.
+    unsafe {
+        crate::bindings::__might_sleep_precision(
+            loc.file().as_ptr().cast(),
+            loc.file().len() as i32,
+            loc.line() as i32,
+        )
+    }
+}  

One last Q: why isn't `might_sleep` marked as `track_caller` and then
have `Location::caller` be called internally?

It would make the API same as the C macro.  

Equivalent to the C side __might_sleep(), not might_sleep(). To avoid
confusion, it might be better to change the name of this function.

The reason why __might_sleep() is used instead of might_sleep() is
might_sleep() can't always be called. It was discussed in v2:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZwPT7HZvG1aYONkQ@boqun-archlinux/ (local)

I don't follow. `__might_sleep` or `might_sleep` wouldn't make a
difference here, given that this function may actually sleep.

- Gary

quoted

Also -- perhaps this function can be public (though I guess you'd need
to put it in a new module).  

Wouldn't it be better to keep it private until actual users appear?