Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Jul 2022 18:04:14 -0700 | From | Yury Norov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] lib/find: add find_nth_bit() |
| |
On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 06:46:35PM -0700, Yury Norov wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 08:28:42PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 6:26 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 1:55 AM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 6:51 AM Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > 2) fns() is not good abbreviation, because among ffs (First) and fls > > > > (Last), fns would be read as Next, which is misleading, I'm not sure > > > > fnths(), which is correct, is good for readers. > > > > > > I agree that fns() may be confusing, but fnths() is even worse to me. > > > > I also think it's not the best choice. > > > > > I expect that it will be mostly used indirectly via find_nth_bit(), and > > > will not create a lot of confusion for users. > > > > Perhaps in that case we can survive with something else? Naming is hard... > > OK, I'll move it to find.h and call __find_nth_bit(). > > Is this the only issue, or I'd wait for more comments?
I looked again, and I think that the structure of the code requires to have fns() in bitops.h
Just because we can't think out a good name doesn't mean that we should break existing structure. Let's keep things as is, and if one day we'll find a better name - we'll rename it.
Regarding this:
> > > I expect that it will be mostly used indirectly via find_nth_bit()
It's not too important what I expect. For available functionality it's much easier to find a place to use, and breaking people from doing it is silly.
> Thanks, > Yury
| |