Re: [PATCH 2/4] rust: devres: replace Devres::new_foreign_owned()

["Benno Lossin" <lossin@kernel.org>]

On Sun Jun 22, 2025 at 11:55 AM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 09:42:03AM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> On Sat Jun 21, 2025 at 11:45 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> > I feel like the name pretty much nails it: it's a new instance that is not
>> > owned, by the Rust side, but by the C devres implementation (i.e. foreign
>> > owned), which automatically drops it when the device is unbound.
>> 
>> Yeah, but `foreign` is so unspecific... With `ForeignOwnable`, it makes
>> sense, since it could be anything.
>> 
>> > Maybe Registration::new_devres_owned() instead?
>> 
>> I like that one better, let's go with that.
>
> SGTM, but please note that this is unrelated to this patch; will create an issue
> for renaming those.

SGTM.

>> > Hm, I think attach_data() doesn't quite hit the point. Maybe just
>> > devres::register_owned() instead. I agree that 'boxed' is an unnecessary
>> > implementation detail.
>> 
>> I like `register_owned` better, but I'm not 100% convinced by the
>> `owned` part... The regular devres creation is called `Devres::new`,
>> right? How about we just call this `register`?
>
> In general, devres::register() is fine for me too. But note that it looses a bit
> the indicator that the ownership of the object is entirely transferred to
> devres, in contrast to the Devres container type.

I'd say that is clear from the function signature & can be expanded upon
in the docs. `register_owned` doesn't really carry the meaning "I take
ownership of what you give me", so I don't think we lose anything here.

(if we have a `register_owned`, then it begs the question what
`register` would be... which doesn't make sense to exist IMO)

---
Cheers,
Benno