Re: [PATCH v7 2/9] rust: sync: Add basic atomic operation mapping framework

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

On Mon Jul 14, 2025 at 3:42 PM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 12:03:11PM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
> [...]
>> > +declare_and_impl_atomic_methods!(
>> > +    /// Basic atomic operations
>> > +    pub trait AtomicHasBasicOps {
>> 
>> I think we should drop the `Has` from the names. So this one can just be
>> `AtomicBasicOps`. Or how about `BasicAtomic`, or `AtomicBase`?
>> 
>
> Actually, given your feedback to `ordering::Any` vs `core::any::Any`,
> I think it makes more sense to keep the current names ;-) These are only
> trait names to describe what operations do an `AtomicImpl` has, and they
> should be used only in atomic mod, so naming them a bit longer is not a
> problem. And by doing so, we free the better names `BasicAtomic` or
> `AtomicBase` for other future usages.
>
> Best I could do is `AtomicBasicOps` or `HasAtomicBasicOps`.

But you are already in the `ops` namespace, so by your argument you
could just use `ops::BasicAtomic` :)

I'm fine with `AtomicBasicOps`.

>> > +declare_and_impl_atomic_methods!(
>> > +    /// Atomic arithmetic operations
>> > +    pub trait AtomicHasArithmeticOps {
>> 
>> Forgot to rename this one to `Add`? I think `AtomicAdd` sounds best for
>
> No, because at the `AtomicImpl` level, it's easy to know whether a type
> has all the arithmetic operations or none (also the `Delta` type should
> be known). But I don't have opinions on renaming it to `AtomicAddOps` or
> `HasAtomicAddOps`.

Ahh right yeah this makes sense. So let's use `AtomicArithmeticOps` if
you insist on the `Ops` part.

---
Cheers,
Benno