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

[Onur <work@onurozkan.dev>]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 21:48:07 +0200
"Benno Lossin" <lossin@kernel.org> wrote:

> >> > 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 have a strong feeling on any of them, they are all the same
at some point. The reason why I suggested `init` was to keep it as
close/same as possible to the C implementation so people with C
knowledge would adapt to Rust implementation easier and quicker.

> Oh yeah the name was just a placeholder.
> 
> The advantage of custom is that the user can do anything in the
> closure.

Right, that is a good plus compared to alternatives. :)

Regards,
Onur