Commit dbd5058ba60c ("rust: make pin-init its own crate") moved all
items from pin-init into the pin-init crate, including the
`assert_pinned!` macro.

Thus fix the path.

This occurrence was missed in that commit, since it has no current
users, although binder does.

Cc: stable@kernel.org # I haven't found the commit in stable yet, but just to be sure.
Fixes: dbd5058ba60c ("rust: make pin-init its own crate")
Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>
---
 rust/kernel/list/arc.rs | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/rust/kernel/list/arc.rs b/rust/kernel/list/arc.rs
index 13c50df37b89..a88a2dc65aa7 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/list/arc.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/list/arc.rs
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ unsafe fn on_drop_list_arc(&self) {}
     } $($rest:tt)*) => {
         impl$(<$($generics)*>)? $crate::list::ListArcSafe<$num> for $t {
             unsafe fn on_create_list_arc_from_unique(self: ::core::pin::Pin<&mut Self>) {
-                $crate::assert_pinned!($t, $field, $fty, inline);
+                ::pin_init::assert_pinned!($t, $field, $fty, inline);
 
                 // SAFETY: This field is structurally pinned as per the above assertion.
                 let field = unsafe {

base-commit: f26449565019315650c9fe87743b10103910ca6b
-- 
2.49.0

On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 7:34 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Commit dbd5058ba60c ("rust: make pin-init its own crate") moved all
> items from pin-init into the pin-init crate, including the
> `assert_pinned!` macro.
>
> Thus fix the path.
>
> This occurrence was missed in that commit, since it has no current
> users, although binder does.
>
> Cc: stable@kernel.org # I haven't found the commit in stable yet, but just to be sure.
> Fixes: dbd5058ba60c ("rust: make pin-init its own crate")
> Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>

Applied to `rust-next` -- thanks!

    [ Reworded slightly as discussed in the list. - Miguel ]

The commit is in v6.15 (rather than just in e.g. rust-next), so it
should indeed have the Cc: stable (I removed the suffix).

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel

On Mon May 26, 2025 at 8:46 PM CEST, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 7:34 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> Commit dbd5058ba60c ("rust: make pin-init its own crate") moved all
>> items from pin-init into the pin-init crate, including the
>> `assert_pinned!` macro.
>>
>> Thus fix the path.
>>
>> This occurrence was missed in that commit, since it has no current
>> users, although binder does.
>>
>> Cc: stable@kernel.org # I haven't found the commit in stable yet, but just to be sure.
>> Fixes: dbd5058ba60c ("rust: make pin-init its own crate")
>> Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>
>
> Applied to `rust-next` -- thanks!
>
>     [ Reworded slightly as discussed in the list. - Miguel ]
>
> The commit is in v6.15 (rather than just in e.g. rust-next), so it
> should indeed have the Cc: stable (I removed the suffix).

Yes, at the time of writing the commit, I hadn't pulled from Linus'
tree & the stable trees.

Thanks!

---
Cheers,
Benno

On Sun May 25, 2025 at 7:34 PM CEST, Benno Lossin wrote:
> Commit dbd5058ba60c ("rust: make pin-init its own crate") moved all
> items from pin-init into the pin-init crate, including the
> `assert_pinned!` macro.
>
> Thus fix the path.
>
> This occurrence was missed in that commit, since it has no current
> users, although binder does.

Aw damn, I edited the message, but forgot to regenerate the .patch
file... here is the edited version:

    Commit dbd5058ba60c ("rust: make pin-init its own crate") moved all
    items from pin-init into the pin-init crate, including the
    `assert_pinned!` macro.
    
    Thus fix the path of the sole user of the `assert_pinned!` macro.
    
    This occurrence was missed in the commit above, since it is in a macro
    has no current users (although binder is a future user).

---
Cheers,
Benno

> Cc: stable@kernel.org # I haven't found the commit in stable yet, but just to be sure.
> Fixes: dbd5058ba60c ("rust: make pin-init its own crate")
> Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>
> ---
>  rust/kernel/list/arc.rs | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/list/arc.rs b/rust/kernel/list/arc.rs
> index 13c50df37b89..a88a2dc65aa7 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/list/arc.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/list/arc.rs
> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ unsafe fn on_drop_list_arc(&self) {}
>      } $($rest:tt)*) => {
>          impl$(<$($generics)*>)? $crate::list::ListArcSafe<$num> for $t {
>              unsafe fn on_create_list_arc_from_unique(self: ::core::pin::Pin<&mut Self>) {
> -                $crate::assert_pinned!($t, $field, $fty, inline);
> +                ::pin_init::assert_pinned!($t, $field, $fty, inline);
>  
>                  // SAFETY: This field is structurally pinned as per the above assertion.
>                  let field = unsafe {
>
> base-commit: f26449565019315650c9fe87743b10103910ca6b

On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 7:39 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>     This occurrence was missed in the commit above, since it is in a macro
>     has no current users (although binder is a future user).

"since it is in a macro <rule that> has no current users"?

Cheers,
Miguel

On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 8:51 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "since it is in a macro <rule that> has no current users"?

i.e. the macro has uses, but not the `tracked_by` rule in particular, right?

Cheers,
Miguel

On Sun May 25, 2025 at 8:53 PM CEST, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 8:51 PM Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "since it is in a macro <rule that> has no current users"?
>
> i.e. the macro has uses, but not the `tracked_by` rule in particular, right?

Oh yeah that's correct.

---
Cheers,
Benno