On Thu Sep 4, 2025 at 12:15 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote:
<snip>
>>> +use kernel::prelude::*;
>>> +
>>> +/// Macro for defining bitfield-packed structures in Rust.
>>> +/// The size of the underlying storage type is specified with
>>> #[repr(TYPE)].
>>> +///
>>> +/// # Example (just for illustration)
>>> +/// ```rust
>>> +/// bitstruct! {
>>> +/// #[repr(u64)]
>>> +/// pub struct PageTableEntry {
>>> +/// 0:0 present as bool,
>>> +/// 1:1 writable as bool,
>>> +/// 11:9 available as u8,
>>> +/// 51:12 pfn as u64,
>>> +/// 62:52 available2 as u16,
>>> +/// 63:63 nx as bool,
>>
>> A note on syntax: for nova-core, we may want to use the `H:L` notation,
>> as this is what OpenRM uses, but in the larger kernel we might want to
>> use inclusive ranges (`L..=H`) as it will look more natural in Rust
>> code (and is the notation the `bits` module already uses).
>
> Perhaps future add-on enhancement to have both syntax? I'd like to initially
> keep H:L and stabilize the code first, what do you think?
Let's have the discussion with the other stakeholders (Daniel?). I think
in Nova we want to keep the `H:L` syntax, as it matches what the OpenRM
headers do (so Nova would have its own `register` macro that calls into
the common one, tweaking things as it needs). But in the kernel crate we
should use something intuitive for everyone.
