>> swap_bytes / swap_4byte_words / swap_8byte_words
>> swap_bytes / swap_ints / swap_longs
>> swap_1 / swap_4 / swap_8
>> Pistols at dawn?
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 22:59:55 +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote:
> Yes, in my opinion, swap_bytes / swap_ints / swap_longs are the
> most readable because we have both swap_ints and swap_longs functions
> (in one file near each other), so I don't think that there will be
> any confusion about size.
Yes, that's what I thought. They're three related but different
functions, suffixed _bytes, _ints, and _longs. What could the
difference possibly be? And if anyone has any lingering doubts,
the functions are right there, with exquisitely clear comments.
No to mention where they're used. Is "is_aligned(base, size, 8)"
remotely obscure? Especially in context:
if (is_aligned(base, size, 8))
swap_func = swap_longs;
else if (is_aligned(base, size, 4))
swap_func = swap_ints;
else
swap_func = swap_bytes;
What subtle and mysterious code.
> But actually, it doesn't matter which name will you take, because
> the meaning of each, in my opinion, is obvious enough, so I don't
> mind about any of these options.
I'm just amazed that this piece of bikeshedding is the most
contentious thing about the patch series.
I mean, if I'd named them:
llanfairpwllgwyngyll()
shravanabelagola()
zheleznodorozhny()
or
peckish()
esuriant()
hungry()
then yes, those would be bad names.
I prefer the shorter _ints and _longs names, but this is just
not a hill I want to die on.
