Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 4 Aug 2024 16:42:55 -0600
From:      Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>
To:        Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc:        Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: A Demo of rust-in-base
Message-ID:  <CAOtMX2j170n18mbKe%2BO9JM=G-fjn8H=GCDTK9zt8Y_4Dgy%2Byjw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <202408042038.474KcKrD052069@critter.freebsd.dk>
References:  <CAOtMX2gdt8xYyLR3peYWhov-161-6d7%2B8L6TiHCCyw1NQyspXw@mail.gmail.com> <202408041800.474I0HUM050473@critter.freebsd.dk> <CAOtMX2ht0EinR4G56gN6z=gQuJDAHfnE0JPOo7E6hSWC1=dDzA@mail.gmail.com> <202408041820.474IKjVV050602@critter.freebsd.dk> <CAOtMX2gh8O1OntWhBzhZLv6sFt9WHwWgOu8LmLWU3YQGYks=Uw@mail.gmail.com> <202408041904.474J4b9e050871@critter.freebsd.dk> <CANCZdfp3N7HSXK2yW2N6BCFS3aNJwJNiozpnhUvJUOAVX_H9rA@mail.gmail.com> <202408042038.474KcKrD052069@critter.freebsd.dk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 2:38=E2=80=AFPM Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.d=
k> wrote:
>
> --------
> Warner Losh writes:
>
> > > > Because those two components need to be updated in lock-step with
> > > > potentially any git commit to the base system.  Not just official
> > > > releases, even minor ones.
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to be glib here: I really want to make sure I understa=
nd
> > > any fine nuances you are trying to communicate.
> > >
> > > Isn't that precisely what drm-kmod already deals with ?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > The other is KBI and matching the kernel. The massive inlining in linux=
kpi
> > make a stable KBI basically impossible [...]
>
> That was essentially my point:  We already have things in ports which
> are totally fragile relative to the kernel, so I want to make sure there
> is not som new/other/worse/different aspects in the two cases Alan
> brought up.

Yeah, the problem is pretty similar to what drm-kmod faces.  To
quantify the scale:
* Between 13.0-RELEASE and the latest stable/13 there were 61 changes
to tests/sys/fs/fusefs.
* 37 of those were paired with a kernel change, usually in the same commit.

If the fusefs test suite were external, that's 37 changes that would
need to be replicated in three places (freebsd-src, fusefs-tests, and
freebsd-ports).  Any user running the tests would need to build the
port about once per month, if they track stable/13.  Git archaeology
would be a lot harder.  And worst of all, MFCing changes from main to
stable branches would be very confusing.  Should the fusefs-tests
repository have its own stable branches?  Or would the stable branches
just not be tested?  Those are the reasons why I wrote the fusefs
tests in C++ instead of Rust, even though it's a lower productivity
language.

-Alan



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOtMX2j170n18mbKe%2BO9JM=G-fjn8H=GCDTK9zt8Y_4Dgy%2Byjw>