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 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
