Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull hmm changes

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:03:24AM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:

> > struct mmu_notifier_mm (ie the mm->mmu_notifier_mm)
> >    -> mmn_mm
> > struct mm_struct 
> >    -> mm
> > struct mmu_notifier (ie the user subscription to the mm_struct)
> >    -> mn
> > struct mmu_interval_notifier (the other kind of user subscription)
> >    -> mni
> 
> What about "interval" the context should already tell people
> it is related to mmu notifier and thus a notifier. I would
> just remove the notifier suffix, this would match the below
> range.

Interval could be a good replacement for mni in the mm/mmu_notififer
file if we don't do the wholesale rename

> > I think it would be overall nicer with better names for the original
> > structs. Perhaps:
> > 
> >  mmn_* - MMU notifier prefix
> >  mmn_state <- struct mmu_notifier_mm
> >  mmn_subscription (mmn_sub) <- struct mmu_notifier
> >  mmn_range_subscription (mmn_range_sub) <- struct mmu_interval_notifier
> >  mmn_invalidate_desc <- struct mmu_notifier_range
> 
> This looks good.

Well, lets just bite the bullet then and switch it. Do you like
'state'? I thought that was the weakest one

We could use mmnotif as the prefix, this makes the longest:

  struct mmnotif_range_subscription

Which is reasonable enough

> Maybe we can do a semantic patch to do convertion and then Linus
> can easily apply the patch by just re-running the coccinelle.

I tried this last time I renamed everything, it was OK, but it missed
updating the comments. So it still needs some by-hand helping.

I'll make some patches next week when I get back.

Jason