From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] overflow.h: Add arithmetic shift helper
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:48:41 -0600
Message-ID: <20180801154841.GA10824@ziepe.ca>
References: <20180801000039.44314-1-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20180801000039.44314-2-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20180801075744.qpppbaywp5dklxul@mwanda>
 <20180801080724.2vgzagooda56aypw@mwanda>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180801080724.2vgzagooda56aypw@mwanda>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>, Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>, Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>, Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org

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