---
# System prepended metadata

title: Meeting 2025-03-05
tags: [meeting notes]

---

# Meeting 2025-03-05
<!-- Leave your topic starting with ### in the relevant sections below -->

## Critical
<!-- bugs, soundness issues, urgent patches/reviews etc. -->

* If we keep having 15ish people each time we meet, we should go back to requiring propose topics ahead of the meeting.
  * [ ] Boqun to follow up if there is a to create the meeting note automatically. 

## Status Reports
<!-- You want to report on something you are working on/request reviews.
Or you want to know the status of something someone else is doing -->

* moudle_param needs review tags for "Subject: [PATCH v8 6/7] rust: add parameter support to the `module!` macro" https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250227-module-params-v3-v8-6-ceeee85d9347@kernel.org/

## Discussion Questions
<!-- Anything that requires lengthy discussion/more general questions also fit here -->

### `pin-init` crate separation

Already have reviews from Fiona and Andreas + tested-by from Andreas. But could use some more from Danilo (nova) & Alice (binder) and probably the Asahi project.

- examples reviewing

#### Questions

- Will all submitted patches (e.g. from GitHub) also go on the LKML?
  Benno: yes 
  Danilo: How does that work? Are contributors required to submit to both?
  Benno: no, I will prefer GH PRs (since the CI runs there and all files are present in that repo), but I will also take patches from the mailing list. (if someone submits a GH PR, then I will send the patches to the list and the other way around if they send a patch via the list)
  Danilo: Sounds a bit painful for you, guess you want some automation?
  Benno: I do have a script to port patches from GH to the kernel: <https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/pin-init/commit/7eda8fda7cb48883511db4b5f4fff8d574eef25a>
  But the other way around I don't yet have one.
  Danilo: For the merge strategy it would mean both GH and LKML need review (I mean you'll be the maintainer, but still)?
  Benno: yes, Gary also will be helping me (at least after the `syn` change is done :)
  
- Do you also intend to merge userspace only code into the kernel? Is this necessary for maintainability?
  Benno: at the moment, yes, that's some part that Andreas complained about. 
  Danilo: I'd prefer if the sync could be limited to code that's actually used by the kernel too.
  Benno: if we want the doctests to be run in `rusttest`, then some of those will be needed (the only ones that aren't needed then are 2 exmaples IIRC)
  Danilo: If we get test coverage to use all of this code, that'd be great too.
  Benno: will try to get it working, but might do it in another series.
  Danilo: That's perfectly fine. :)


## Miscellaneous
<!-- stuff that does not fit into other categories -->
