On 2026-10-20 21:25:42+0300, Zhi Wang wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2026 19:30:33 +0200 > Thomas Weißschuh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +To: Zhi Wang > > > > Thanks Alex for bridge the threads together! > > Hey Thomas, > > Thanks for the comparison! As a user of this feature, I'm happy to > combine the two series and see this making progress. > > The Bounded types, bitfield tests, and module_path!() fallback look > like useful additions. One clarification: with CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL, our > disabled path already has no FFI call. static_branch_unlikely!() is > sufficient for our initially disabled callsites, including enabling > them at runtime.
Ack. Although adding jump label support as a later step would make the patches smaller and easier to review. > For the combined series, I'd like to retain these behaviors: > > - Debug logging is independent of debug_assertions, starts disabled, > and is controlled through dynamic debug. IMHO, fewer distro kernels > are compiled with CONFIG_RUST_DEBUG_ASSERTIONS=y nowadays. (At least, > Arch and Fedora are compiled with N) Ack. It would still be useful to also support default-enabled callsites, like the C version does. What about '--cfg DEBUG'? > - Disabled pr_debug!()/dev_dbg!() calls do not evaluate their > arguments. IMHO, it seems the current dev_dbg!() in your patch > evaluates the params before checking the switch on/off. (pr_debug()! > looks fine though) As far as I understand, fmt!() itself does not yet evaluate the expressions passed as arguments. It only typechecks and creates the precompiled Arguments<'_> structure. The parameters' Display traits are only executed when the Arguments<'_> is written somewhere. IMO the typechecking should be done even if the code is going to be compiled out. Similar to no_printk() on the C side. > - The dynamic-debug prefix flags remain supported. (I use the C version > of dynamic debug to support e.g. +m, +l and _t) Absolutely, this is a bug in my v1. It is fixed in v2. > Could you share your pending encapsulation/Opaque and static-branch > wip patches? We can then work out how they fit together, incorporate > Alice's review feedback, and preserve attribution for Andrew's work. Here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/thomas.weissschuh/linux.git/log/?h=b4/rust-dyndbg > Thanks, > Zhi. > > > Hi Alexandre, > > > > On 2026-10-20 22:14:12+0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > > > On Sun Oct 11, 2026 at 9:52 PM JST, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > > Add the Rust infrastructure to integrate with the dynamic debug > > > > infrastructure. > > > > > > > > Static keys are not used for now, as the full bindings are missing > > > > for those. A follow-up series will add that. > > > > Also custom classes are not supported yet, but could be added on > > > > top. > > > > > > > > Patches 1-4: Generic Rust preparation patches. > > > > Patches 5-7: C dynamic debug preparation patches. > > > > Patches 8: Rust Dynamic debug infrastructure. > > > > Patches 9-11: Rust Dynamic debug enablement. > > > > > > Were you aware of this series [1]? > > > > I was was told about the original work from Andrew back at Kangrejos. > > However I was unable to find it on LKML and it was not clear how far > > along that series has come along. The posting of Zhi's v3 only > > happened after I started on my variant, and I did not see it until > > you mentioned it. So my development is completely independent from > > Andrew's and Zhi's. > > > > > There seems to be quite a bit of overlap. > > > > Indeed. I see pros for both serieses: > > > > Mine: > > * No FFI in the fastpath. > > * No need for RUST_MODNAME. > > * Use of Bounded. > > * Tests for the flag encoding. > > * modname!() as function name. > > (As discussed with Benno and Gary and LPC) > > * Better encapsulation of 'struct Descriptor' (partially not yet > > posted) > > * Use of Opaque<> to wrap bindings::_ddebug (not yet posted). > > * Use of !cv() (not yet posted). > > > > Andrew/Zhi: > > * Better docs. > > * Static branch support. > > * static_branch_likely!() support is missing however. > > * I also have follow-up patches to enable static_branch_likely!(). > > * host doctest support. > > > > I am perfectly fine with merging both serieses. > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > [1] > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > >
