Add a macro to make initialization easier #103

JalonWong · 2025-08-14T19:33:06Z

No description provided.

zeenix

Sounds good to me, thanks! Just a bit of nitpicks and it should be mergable.

src/lib.rs

JalonWong · 2025-08-17T05:29:37Z

@zeenix I have made improvements based on the suggestions, and I added a assert!($size > 0); in the macro. Is it appropriate?

zeenix

LGTM, thanks!

zeenix · 2025-08-17T16:52:37Z

@JalonWong I'll merge soon but I want to first give others a chance to have a look.

CC @adamgreig @sgued

adamgreig · 2025-08-18T00:01:07Z

My only thought is that people are likely to want to configure where the backing store for the heap is located in memory using link_section. If the assert!() wasn't there, you could put #[unsafe(link_section=".sram2")] before the init!() macro call; I'm not sure what's most elegant otherwise though:

add an optional macro argument for link section? helps for this case, but maybe people will want other attributes (though I think link section is the main one)
move the assert later so people can decorate the static mut with whatever attributes they want? I guess it works but it's kind of ugly and unclear when reading the code what it applies to
leave it as-is, and if someone wants to specify the linker section they can just write the macro code out by hand instead

zeenix · 2025-08-18T09:01:34Z

add an optional macro argument for link section? helps for this case, but maybe people will want other attributes (though I think link section is the main one)

leave it as-is, and if someone wants to specify the linker section they can just write the macro code out by hand instead

How about a combination of these two: we add the optional argument for the linker section and if people need to add other attributes, they just don't use the macro?

src/lib.rs

JalonWong · 2025-08-18T14:36:02Z

@zeenix @adamgreig If someone want to use link_section I think they just don't use the macro. I leave the previous example in the README.

src/lib.rs

JalonWong · 2025-08-19T16:50:51Z

@sgued @zeenix I found out that it's very easy to add once in the init(), because critical_section is already used in it. I just added a bool member variable. This keeps the macro very simple, I also remove the unsafe in the macro, it works fine.

Do you think that this is a better solution?

zeenix · 2025-08-22T13:16:19Z

src/llff.rs

    /// - This function must be called exactly ONCE.
    /// - `size > 0`


With the assertions in place now, these are no longer a safety issue but rather just panic scenarios, so I'd change the heading here from Safety to Panics and update the wording of the section.

I'm not sure how to express it. Could you provide some content?

Can you give it a try first? I can help if/when needed. Just try to keep the changes to minimum and focus on adapting the wording.

This is still not done.

The cllipy requires a Safety section, so I added the content under it.
Maybe we have to make this function safe to change it to Panics

Ah right. I had assumed that @JalonWong did his homework but I guess not. :) So @JalonWong we need both Safety and Panics sections then.

@zeenix Yes, I noticed that the arguments need unsafe. I wonder if we should continue to modify it? Or what content should be written in the Safety section if we keep both Safety and Panics sections?

Or what content should be written in the Safety section if we keep both Safety and Panics sections?

Well, Safety should list the assumptions that keep this method safe and Panics should list the panic scenarios?

We already have the panic scenarios. Did you mean we should add more safety contents? Like "make sure the memory start_addr pointed to is available"?

I made an inline comment so there is no ambiguity anymore.

src/tlsf.rs

src/llff.rs

src/tlsf.rs

src/llff.rs

zeenix · 2025-08-29T15:24:41Z

src/tlsf.rs

    ///
-    /// - This function must be called exactly ONCE.
-    /// - `size > 0`
+    /// - this function is called more than ONCE.


@JalonWong Here, the heading is still Safety but we're listing panics. As I have previous said, you need to rename the section to Panics. For Safety you need to add another section where you describe the safety invariants.

OK, I have done it. Please verify if the content under Safety is appropriate.

OK, I have done it. Please verify if the content under Safety is appropriate.

Yes, but see my other comment.

zeenix

Sorry but still some things to do. Thank you for your patience and hard work on this so far. 👍

zeenix · 2025-08-30T11:03:11Z

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](http://semver.org/).
 ### Added

 - Added a `init` macro to make initialization easier.
+- Added a flag to prevent duplicate initialization


This is a completely internal change and should not be communicated to the users. Instead, you should document the changed behaviour of the init methods (under Changed heading) here.

zeenix · 2025-08-30T11:10:27Z

src/tlsf.rs

    ///
-    /// - This function must be called exactly ONCE.
-    /// - `size > 0`
+    /// - this function is called more than ONCE.


OK, I have done it. Please verify if the content under Safety is appropriate.

Yes, but see my other comment.

src/llff.rs

JalonWong requested a review from a team as a code owner August 14, 2025 19:33

JalonWong force-pushed the master branch 4 times, most recently from 6bca433 to 6335bb8 Compare August 15, 2025 19:49

zeenix requested changes Aug 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/lib.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JalonWong force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from 9951db6 to 080581e Compare August 17, 2025 05:23

zeenix previously approved these changes Aug 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

sgued requested changes Aug 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JalonWong dismissed zeenix’s stale review via 6d4171b August 18, 2025 14:25

JalonWong force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from 6d4171b to 1e17f59 Compare August 18, 2025 14:31

JalonWong force-pushed the master branch 5 times, most recently from f447854 to d47bd8a Compare August 19, 2025 02:51

sgued reviewed Aug 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/lib.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JalonWong force-pushed the master branch from a70b6a6 to 8842c58 Compare August 19, 2025 16:44

JalonWong force-pushed the master branch from 8842c58 to 39e4961 Compare August 19, 2025 17:03

zeenix requested changes Aug 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

Add a macro to make initialization easier

eb87f1a

JalonWong force-pushed the master branch from 39e4961 to 8f5f292 Compare August 25, 2025 18:00

JalonWong force-pushed the master branch from 8f5f292 to 036f4a3 Compare August 25, 2025 21:04

zeenix reviewed Aug 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/tlsf.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JalonWong force-pushed the master branch 5 times, most recently from f5ba156 to b3afee2 Compare August 27, 2025 16:21

sgued reviewed Aug 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/llff.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JalonWong force-pushed the master branch from b3afee2 to 3ff3036 Compare August 27, 2025 18:15

sgued previously approved these changes Aug 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

zeenix reviewed Aug 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

JalonWong dismissed sgued’s stale review via be4beb7 August 30, 2025 03:25

JalonWong force-pushed the master branch from 3ff3036 to be4beb7 Compare August 30, 2025 03:25

zeenix requested changes Aug 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

Add a flag to prevent duplicate initialization

7d96042

JalonWong force-pushed the master branch from 263b4a0 to 7d96042 Compare August 30, 2025 18:48

		/// - This function must be called exactly ONCE.
		/// - `size > 0`

Add a macro to make initialization easier #103

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add a macro to make initialization easier #103

Uh oh!

Conversation

JalonWong commented Aug 14, 2025

Uh oh!

zeenix left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

JalonWong commented Aug 17, 2025

Uh oh!

zeenix left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zeenix commented Aug 17, 2025

Uh oh!

adamgreig commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

zeenix commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

JalonWong commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

JalonWong commented Aug 19, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JalonWong Aug 25, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zeenix left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

JalonWong commented Aug 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading

JalonWong Aug 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading