On 8/13/26 17:32, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 1:57 AM Gary Guo <[email protected]> wrote:
IMO this is the correct way, also consistent with
https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/[email protected]/
It might make sense to add this to rust-next.
Yeah, it is also consistent (in the sense of adding a fallback) with
the other fix I added when applying the series for the `macros`
doctest; and the `kernel` crate is not an actual module yet.
I guess yet another solution would be to have an even more local
fallback, but that would be too local in my opinion, i.e. we will want
to use it elsewhere sooner or later.
So I could fold [2] into commit 98f256e27262, but a commit on top is
fine, I will reference that commit from the new one instead.
Ok, done -- Danilo, I took your diff and converted it into a proper
commit, please double-check you are OK with the Signed-off-by:
ec6fcf8a175a ("rust: kernel: add `LocalModule` fallback for
`#[vtable]` `impl`s")
I was just looking at the difference between the doctest and in-crate
`#[kunit_tests]` test paths — thanks for taking care of this.
I'll look into [3] once the new build system lands.
Best regards,
Alvin
Thanks!
Cheers,
Miguel
