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)) {
regards,
dan carpenter
