Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] implement ww_mutex abstraction for the Rust tree

[Benno Lossin]

On Mon Jul 7, 2025 at 8:06 PM CEST, Onur wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:31:10 +0200
> "Benno Lossin" <lossin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Mon Jul 7, 2025 at 3:39 PM CEST, Onur wrote:
>> > On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:14:37 +0200
>> > "Benno Lossin" <lossin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > We also need to take into consideration that the user want to
>> >> > drop any lock in the sequence? E.g. the user acquires a, b and
>> >> > c, and then drop b, and then acquires d. Which I think is
>> >> > possible for ww_mutex.
>> >> 
>> >> Hmm what about adding this to the above idea?:
>> >> 
>> >>     impl<'a, Locks> WwActiveCtx<'a, Locks>
>> >>     where
>> >>         Locks: Tuple
>> >>     {
>> >>         fn custom<L2>(self, action: impl FnOnce(Locks) -> L2) ->
>> >> WwActiveCtx<'a, L2>; }
>> >> 
>> >> Then you can do:
>> >> 
>> >>     let (a, c, d) = ctx.begin()
>> >>         .lock(a)
>> >>         .lock(b)
>> >>         .lock(c)
>> >>         .custom(|(a, _, c)| (a, c))
>> >>         .lock(d)
>> >>         .finish();
>> >
>> >
>> > Instead of `begin` and `custom`, why not something like this:
>> >
>> > 	let (a, c, d) = ctx.init()
>> > 	    .lock(a)
>> >             .lock(b)
>> >             .lock(c)
>> >             .unlock(b)
>> >             .lock(d)
>> >             .finish();
>> >
>> > Instead of `begin`, `init` would be better naming to imply `fini`
>> > on the C side, and `unlock` instead of `custom` would make the
>> > intent clearer when dropping locks mid chain.

Also, I'm not really fond of the name `init`, how about `enter`?

>> 
>> I don't think that this `unlock` operation will work. How would you
>> implement it?
>
>
> We could link mutexes to locks using some unique value, so that we can
> access locks by passing mutexes (though that sounds a bit odd).
>
> Another option would be to unlock by the index, e.g.,:
>
> 	let (a, c) = ctx.init()
> 	    .lock(a)
>             .lock(b)
>             .unlock::<1>()
>             .lock(c)
>             .finish();

Hmm yeah that's interesting, but probably not very readable...

    let (a, c, e) = ctx
        .enter()
        .lock(a)
        .lock(b)
        .lock_with(|(a, b)| b.foo())
        .unlock::<1>()
        .lock(c)
        .lock(d)
        .lock_with(|(.., d)| d.bar())
        .unlock::<2>();

> The index approach would require us to write something very similar
> to `Tuple` (with macro obviously) you proposed sometime ago.
>
> We could also just go back to your `custom` but find a better name
> for it (such as `retain`).

Oh yeah the name was just a placeholder.

The advantage of custom is that the user can do anything in the closure.

---
Cheers,
Benno