Re: Rename restrictedmem => guardedmem? (was: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM)

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Mon Apr 17, 2023 at 6:40 PM EEST, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> What do y'all think about renaming "restrictedmem" to "guardedmem"?
>
> I want to start referring to the code/patches by its syscall/implementation name
> instead of "UPM", as "UPM" is (a) very KVM centric, (b) refers to the broader effort
> and not just the non-KVM code, and (c) will likely be confusing for future reviewers
> since there's nothing in the code that mentions "UPM" in any way.
>
> But typing out restrictedmem is quite tedious, and git grep shows that "rmem" is
> already used to refer to "reserved memory".
>
> Renaming the syscall to "guardedmem"...
>
>   1. Allows for a shorthand and namespace, "gmem", that isn't already in use by
>      the kernel (see "reserved memory above").
>  
>   2. Provides a stronger hint as to its purpose.  "Restricted" conveys that the
>      allocated memory is limited in some way, but doesn't capture how the memory
>      is restricted, e.g. "restricted" could just as easily mean that the allocation
>      can be restricted to certain types of backing stores or something.  "Guarded"
>      on the other hand captures that the memory has extra defenses of some form.
>
>   3. Is shorter to type and speak.  Work smart, not hard :-)
>
>   4. Isn't totally wrong for the KVM use case if someone assumes the "g" means
>      "guest" when reading mail and whatnot.
>
>
> P.S. I trimmed the Cc/To substantially for this particular discussion to avoid
>      spamming folks that don't (yet) care about this stuff with another potentially
>      lengthy thread.  Feel free to add (back) any people/lists.

I guess 'guarded' could be a good noun in the sense that it does not
get easily mixed up to anything pre-existing, and it does give the idea
of the purpose.

BR, Jarkko