Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] rust: alloc: add Vec::remove

[Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>]

On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 01:40:36PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 11:10:46AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 06:28:48PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 02:44:26PM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > > This is needed by Rust Binder in the range allocator, and by upcoming
> > > > GPU drivers during firmware initialization.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  rust/kernel/alloc/kvec.rs | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/rust/kernel/alloc/kvec.rs b/rust/kernel/alloc/kvec.rs
> > > > index 357f5a37c7b1d15b709a10c162292841eed0e376..0682108951675cbee05faa130e5a9ce72fc343ba 100644
> > > > --- a/rust/kernel/alloc/kvec.rs
> > > > +++ b/rust/kernel/alloc/kvec.rs
> > > > @@ -386,6 +386,42 @@ pub fn pop(&mut self) -> Option<T> {
> > > >          Some(unsafe { removed.read() })
> > > >      }
> > > >  
> > > > +    /// Removes the element at the given index.
> > > > +    ///
> > > > +    /// # Panics
> > > > +    ///
> > > > +    /// Panics if the index is out of bounds.
> > > 
> > > Let's check for the index and return an error instead. I know we also can't
> > > prevent OOB index access panics for e.g. slices, but here we can control it.
> > 
> > Okay, I will return an `Option<T>`.
> 
> Hm...to me this looks like it is a real error condition rather than something
> optional.
> 
> What does it mean if remove() returns None? It really means that the given index
> is out of bounds, which is never correct behavior for the caller of the API.
> 
> So, I'd argue that None is an unexpected return value for a caller and needs to
> be handled in an error path, for which returning a Result is much more
> ergonomic and correct, since Result can describe the reason, i.e. EINVAL,
> whereas with Option a caller would need to pick an error code itself.

Fair enough. I think a dedicated error type is probably reasonable here,
but sure.

Alice