Re: [PATCH v6 3/9] rust: sync: atomic: Add ordering annotation types

["Benno Lossin" <lossin@kernel.org>]

On Thu Jul 10, 2025 at 4:42 PM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 02:00:59PM +0200, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> "Benno Lossin" <lossin@kernel.org> writes:
>> > On Thu Jul 10, 2025 at 8:00 AM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote:
>> >> +/// The trait bound for annotating operations that support any ordering.
>> >> +pub trait Any: internal::Sealed {
>> >
>> > I don't like the name `Any`, how about `AnyOrdering`? Otherwise we
>> > should require people to write `ordering::Any` because otherwise it's
>> > pretty confusing.
>> 
>> I agree with this observation.
>> 
>
> I'm OK to do the change, but let me show my arguments ;-)
>
> * First, we are using a language that supports namespaces,
>   so I feel it's a bit unnecessary to use a different name just because
>   it conflicts with `core::any::Any`. Doing so kinda undermines the
>   namespace concepts. And we may have other `Any`s in the future, are we
>   sure at the moment we should keyword `Any`?

I don't think `Any` is a good name for something this specific anyways.
If it were something private, then sure use `Any`, but since this is
public, I don't think `Any` is a good name.

> * Another thing is that this trait won't be used very often outside
>   definition of functions that having ordering variants, currently the
>   only users are all inside atomic/generic.rs.

I don't think this is a good argument to keep a bad name.

> I probably choose the `ordering::Any` approach if you guys insist.

I don't think we have a lint for that, so I'd prefer if we avoid that...

Someone is going to just `use ...::ordering::Any` and then have a
function `fn<T: Any>(_: T)` in their code and that will be very
confusing.

---
Cheers,
Benno