[GIT PULL] Please pull hmm changes

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:19:16AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:57:13PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > 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
> 
> Since you're asking, here's my bikeshed. I kinda agree _state looks a bit
> strange for this, what about a _link suffix in the spirit of

Do you think calling it 'mmn_subscriptions' is clear?

Ie a struct mmn_subscriptions holds the lists of struct
mmn_subscription and struct mmn_range_subscription?

Jason