On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 01:00:12PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 6/12/25 8:07 AM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 11:01:32PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> ...
> >> + #[inline(always)]
> >> + pub const fn align_down(self, value: $t) -> $t {
> >
> > I'm late to party, but could we instead implement:
> >
> > pub const fn round_down<i32>(value: i32, shift: i32) -> i32 {
> > value & !((1 << shift) - 1)
> > }
> >
> > pub const fn round_up<i32>(value: i32, shift: i32) -> i32 {
> > let mask = (1 << shift) - 1;
> > value.wrapping_add(mask) & !mask
> > }
>
> Just a naming concern here.
>
> The function name, and the "shift" argument is extremely odd there.
> And that's because it is re-inventing the concept of align_down()
> and align_up(), but with a misleading name and a hard to understand
> "shift" argument.
>
> If you are "rounding" to a power of two, that's normally called
> alignment, at least in kernel code. And if you are rounding to the
> nearest...integer, for example, that's rounding.
>
> But "rounding" with a "shift" argument? That's a little too
> creative! :)
>
Oh, sorry, I should have mentioned where I got these names, see
round_up() and round_down() in include/linux/math.h. But no objection to
find a better name for "shift".
Regards,
Boqun
> >
> > ? It's much harder to pass an invalid alignment with this.
>
> Hopefully we can address argument validation without blowing up
> the usual naming conventions.
>
>
> thanks,
> --
> John Hubbard
>
