On Thu Jun 19, 2025 at 4:24 AM JST, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On Mon Jun 16, 2025 at 8:41 AM CEST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Sun Jun 15, 2025 at 4:16 AM JST, Benno Lossin wrote:
>>> On Thu Jun 12, 2025 at 4:01 PM CEST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>>> + #[inline(always)]
>>>> + pub const fn [<fls_ $t>](v: $t) -> u32 {
>>>
>>> Can we name this `find_last_set_bit_ $t`? When the upstream function
>>> lands, we should also rename this one.
>>
>> We can - but as for `align_up`/`next_multiple_of`, I am not sure which
>> naming scheme (kernel-like or closer to Rust conventions) is favored in
>> such cases, and so far it seems to come down to personal preference. I
>> tend to think that staying close to kernel conventions make it easier to
>> understand when a function is the equivalent of a C one, but whichever
>> policy we adopt it would be nice to codify it somewhere (apologies if it
>> is already and I missed it).
>
> I don't think we have it written down anywhere. I don't think that we
> should have a global rule for this. Certain things are more in the
> purview of the kernel and others are more on the Rust side.
>
> My opinion is that this, since it will hopefully be in `core` at some
> point, should go with the Rust naming.
I guess in that case we should go with `last_set_bit`, as `find_` is not
really used as a prefix for this kind of operations (e.g.
`leading_zeros` and friends).
