On 12/2/19 6:42 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: ... > Regarding the ugly names.. Naming has been really hard here because > currently everything is a 'mmu notifier' and the natural abberviations > from there are crummy. Here is the basic summary: > > 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 > struct mmu_notifier_range (ie the args to invalidate_range) > -> range > > I can send a patch to switch mmn_mm to mmu_notifier_mm, which is the > only pre-existing name for this value. But IIRC, it is a somewhat ugly > with long line wrapping. 'mni' is a pain, I have to reflect on that. > (honesly, I dislike mmu_notififer_mm quite a lot too) > > 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 > > At least this is how I describe them in my mind.. This is a lot of > churn, and spreads through many drivers. This is why I kept the names > as-is and we ended up with the also quite bad 'mmu_interval_notifier' > > Maybe just switch mmu_notifier_mm for mmn_state and leave the drivers > alone? > > Anyone on the CC list have advice? > > Jason No advice, just a naming idea similar in spirit to Jerome's suggestion (use a longer descriptive word, and don't try to capture the entire phrase): use "notif" in place of the unloved "mmn". So partially, approximately like this: notif_* <- MMU notifier prefix notif_state <- struct mmu_notifier_mm notif_subscription (notif_sub) <- struct mmu_notifier notif_invalidate_desc <- struct mmu_notifier_range* notif_range_subscription (notif_range_sub) <- struct mmu_interval_notifier thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA
