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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
