RE: [PATCH next v2 08/11] minmax: Add min_const() and max_const()

[David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>]

From: Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 25 February 2024 17:14
> 
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 at 08:53, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> >
> > The expansions of min() and max() contain statement expressions so are
> > not valid for static intialisers.
> > min_const() and max_const() are expressions so can be used for static
> > initialisers.
> 
> I hate the name.

Picking name is always hard...

> Naming shouldn't be about an implementation detail, particularly not
> an esoteric one like the "C constant expression" rule. That can be
> useful for some internal helper functions or macros, but not for
> something that random people are supposed to USE.
> 
> Telling some random developer that inside an array size declaration or
> a static initializer you need to use "max_const()" because it needs to
> syntactically be a constant expression, and our regular "max()"
> function isn't that, is just *horrid*.
> 
> No, please just use the traditional C model of just using ALL CAPS for
> macro names that don't act like a function.
> 
> Yes, yes, that may end up requiring getting rid of some current users of
> 
>   #define MIN(a,b) ((a)<(b) ? (a):(b))
> 
> but dammit, we don't actually have _that_ many of them, and why should
> we have random drivers doing that anyway?

I'll have a look at what is there.
It might take a three part patch though.
Unless you apply it as a tree-wide patch?

One option is to add as max_const(), then change any existing MAX()
to be max() or max_const() and then finally rename to MAX()?

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)