On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 11:07:24AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 10:57:44AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The idea is nice, but I don't like the API. The "_overflow" feels too
> > specific because maybe we could check for other things in the future.
> > Normally boolean macros should say they are boolean in the name and I
> > would prefer if it returned zero on failure.
> >
> > if (!checked_shift(dest, mask, shift)) {
> > if (!shift_ok(dest, mask, shift)) {
> > if (!safe_shift(dest, mask, shift)) {
>
> Huh... It turns out I put the argument order different as well.
>
> If we wanted to keep it returning 1 on failure then some other names
> are:
>
> if (shift_failed(dest, mask, shift)) {
> if (shift_error(dest, mask, shift)) {
> if (shift_overflow(dest, mask, shift)) {
I think this ship has sailed, the convention for these tests is
already established in overflow.h. ie:
check_add_overflow
check_sub_overflow
check_mul_overflow
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
