Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] gpu: nova-core: add NVKV typed decoding

[Gary Guo]

On Thu Sep 17, 2026 at 9:37 AM BST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Thu Sep 17, 2026 at 8:53 AM BST, Gary Guo wrote:
>> On Mon Sep 14, 2026 at 7:55 AM BST, Eliot Courtney wrote:
>>> On Mon Sep 14, 2026 at 12:46 PM JST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>>> On Thu Aug 27, 2026 at 11:12 PM JST, Eliot Courtney wrote:
>>>>>  use crate::gsp::nvkv::{
>>>>> +    Array,
>>>>>      Index,
>>>>> +    Key,
>>>>>      KeyId,
>>>>>      Op,
>>>>>      Opcode, //
>>>>>  };
>>>>>  use crate::num;
>>>>>  
>>>>> +/// Defines a schema struct together with its [`Schema`] implementation that decodes into `$target`.
>>>>> +///
>>>>> +/// Each member of the struct should implement `Schema`. For every (key, index, value) triple
>>>>> +/// decoded from the NVKV stream, the generated parent `Schema` implementation will call each member
>>>>> +/// in declaration order with that triple. If a member consumes that triple, it will stop there.
>>>>> +/// Otherwise it will keep going until all members are tried.
>>>>> +///
>>>>> +/// The schema struct holds the state required by the schema implementation to do the decode. It's
>>>>> +/// recommended to use one of the existing Schema kinds (`Required`, `Accumulated`, `Key`, `Array`,
>>>>> +/// `Indexed`) for each member.
>>>>> +///
>>>>> +/// # Examples
>>>>> +///
>>>>> +/// ```
>>>>> +/// nvkv_decode! {
>>>>> +///     struct RequestSchema => Request {
>>>>> +///         id: Required<u32, 0x0001>,
>>>>> +///         name: Array<u8, 64, 0x0002>,
>>>>> +///     }
>>>>> +/// }
>>>>> +/// ```
>>>>> +macro_rules! nvkv_decode {
>>>>> +    (
>>>>> +        $(#[$attr:meta])*
>>>>> +        $vis:vis struct $name:ident => $target:ident {
>>>>> +            $(
>>>>> +                $(#[$field_attr:meta])*
>>>>> +                $field_vis:vis $field:ident : $ty:ty
>>>>> +            ),* $(,)?
>>>>> +        }
>>>>> +    ) => {
>>>>> +        $(#[$attr])*
>>>>> +        $vis struct $name {
>>>>> +            $(
>>>>> +                $(#[$field_attr])*
>>>>> +                $field_vis $field: $ty,
>>>>> +            )*
>>>>> +        }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        impl $crate::gsp::nvkv::Schema for $name {
>>>>> +            type Target = $target;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +            fn init() -> impl ::kernel::prelude::Init<Self> {
>>>>> +                ::pin_init::init!(Self {
>>>>> +                    $( $field <- <$ty as $crate::gsp::nvkv::Schema>::init(), )*
>>>>> +                })
>>>>> +            }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +            fn visit(
>>>>> +                &mut self,
>>>>> +                key: $crate::gsp::nvkv::KeyId,
>>>>> +                index: $crate::gsp::nvkv::Index,
>>>>> +                value: $crate::gsp::nvkv::DecoderValue<'_>,
>>>>> +            ) -> ::kernel::error::Result<bool> {
>>>>> +                Ok(false
>>>>> +                    $( || $crate::gsp::nvkv::Schema::visit(&mut self.$field, key, index, value)? )*)
>>>>
>>>> Mmm looks like this is going to be `O(n)` with `n` being the number of
>>>> fields?
>>>>
>>>> This is ok for a first implementation but eventually I hope we can
>>>> switch to a more efficient dispatch.
>>>
>>> I thought quite a bit about this while writing this code, since we need
>>> the escape hatch to imperative decode (custom Schema impl basically). To
>>> be able to get it down to a match on the key, we need to know ahead of
>>> time which keys a Schema will consume. That duplicates the info from the
>>> visit() implementation.
>>>
>>> I thought up a few methods but it's unclear to me which one is best, so
>>> I just left it for now. Please LMK if you think this is urgent, I can
>>> try in a follow up to improve this. Here are my ideas (when I say O(1)
>>> lookup I mean modulo how the compiler decides to do it with the set of
>>> key IDs it gets):
>>>
>>> 1. current code - just visit()
>>> pros: key source of truth not duplicates
>>> cons: O(field) visit as you say
>>>
>>> 2. Associated const KEY_ID: Option<KeyId> - None if a Schema accepts multiple keys.
>>> You can match on each associated const in the macro.
>>> pros: O(1) if the current key goes to a field with KEY_ID = Some(...)
>>> cons: O(#fields accepting multiple keys) if current key is one of them
>>>
>>> 3. fn accepts() -> bool
>>> You can match on `if F::accepts(key)` for each field. We could potentially make
>>> this const with Gary's const traits polyfill.
>>> pros: O(1) if you write an inline-able+optimizable implementation.
>>>
>>> 4. Associated const KEYS table; use tricks to concat tables
>>> pros: O(1) lookup 
>>> cons: actually MSRV can't get this to optimize down to O(1) 
>>>   if you use slice::contains(), but stable can.
>>
>> Hmm, am I missing the obvious? Why not generate a `match` expression on IDs of
>> fields? It looks like in the example all keys would have a known ID to the
>> macro.
>
> Some keys may come from embedded structs, which the macro has no way to
> see.

You can match all keys that you can see, and delegate to embedded structs if
keys are not known.

This is essentially the same pattern that `#[serde(flatten)]` uses, just
replacing identifier names with keys.

The keys don't need be part of the type system, and it just additional metadata
for the macro to generate correct impl.

Best,
Gary