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

[John Hubbard]

On 1/15/25 2:36 AM, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
> "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > 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.
>
> Well I guess there is value in using same names as C. The additional
> docs you sent help a lot so I guess it is fine.

Hi Andreas!

> If we were writing from scratch I would have held hard on `AddressSpace`
> or `MemoryMap` over `Mm`. `Mm` has got to be one of the least
> descriptive names we can come up with.

...but, see the other thread: "Mm" is actually very effective in the context
of kernel development. And we are doing a perfect mix of kernel and Rust
development here. So it's not from scratch at all.

Kernel engineers will immediately know what "Mm" means! Really.


thanks,
--
John Hubbard