From 99c49609b4592d0b43aa8a1cb03899017e75ca8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Ian D. Scott" <ian@iandouglasscott.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:24:50 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Add link to Rust book to unsafe section

---
 src/introduction/unsafes.md | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/src/introduction/unsafes.md b/src/introduction/unsafes.md
index 2cabcde..2b96bf5 100644
--- a/src/introduction/unsafes.md
+++ b/src/introduction/unsafes.md
@@ -8,3 +8,5 @@ In that light, a kernel cannot be 100% safe, however the unsafe parts have to be
 A quick grep gives us some stats: The kernel has 16.52% unsafe code, a 50% improvement in the last three weeks. User space has roughly ~0.2%.
 
 This contrasts with kernels written in C, which cannot make guarantees about safety without costly formal analysis.
+
+You can find out more about how `unsafe` works in the [relevant section of the Rust book](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/unsafe.html).
-- 
GitLab