Re: [PATCH v11 1/8] mm: rust: add abstraction for struct mm_struct

[John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>]

On 1/14/25 7:48 AM, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 10:53:33AM +0100, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 3:50 PM Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@google.com> writes:
...
>>>> +/// [`mmget_not_zero`]: Mm::mmget_not_zero
>>>> +#[repr(transparent)]
>>>> +pub struct Mm {
>>>
>>> Could we come up with a better name? `MemoryMap` or `MemoryMapping`?. You
>>> use `MMapReadGuard` later.
>>
>> Those names seem really confusing to me. The mmap syscall creates a
>> new VMA, but MemoryMap sounds like it's the thing that mmap creates.
>>
>> Lorenzo, what do you think? I'm inclined to just call it Mm since
>> that's what C calls it.
> 
> I think Mm is better just for aligment with the C stuff, I mean the alternative
> is MmStruct or something and... yuck.

For what it's worth, I think using the C naming here is a very good approach.
Because if you come up with a "good" name that is different than what C has
been calling it for 30+ years, then we have to be very thorough in associating
that new name with the C name. And it's hard.

And "mm struct" goes waaay back. Just use that name and everyone will know
what it means.

For less well-established areas, with fewer callers, there is much more
freedom to come up with new, better names.

> 
> And like, here I am TOTALLY onboard with Andreas here, because this naming
> SUCKS. But it sucks on the C side too (we're experts at bad naming :). So for
> consistency, let's suck everywhere...
> 
> Feel free to put a comment about this being a bad name if you like
> though... (not obligatory :)

For mm struct? Maybe let's not! Explanation without the criticism seems
more appropriate imho. :)

btw, I'm very excited to see all of this Rust for Linux progress, it is
wonderful! Thank you for this!


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard