linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 05/23] rust: num: add the `fls` operation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <DAPWKX9V8T26.315LG5OZLLL2M@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 21:24:08 +0200
From: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>
To: "Alexandre Courbot" <acourbot@...dia.com>, "Miguel Ojeda"
 <ojeda@...nel.org>, "Alex Gaynor" <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, "Boqun Feng"
 <boqun.feng@...il.com>, "Gary Guo" <gary@...yguo.net>,
 Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, "Andreas
 Hindborg" <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 "Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>, "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>,
 "David Airlie" <airlied@...il.com>, "Simona Vetter" <simona@...ll.ch>,
 "Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, "Maxime Ripard"
 <mripard@...nel.org>, "Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@...e.de>
Cc: "John Hubbard" <jhubbard@...dia.com>, "Ben Skeggs" <bskeggs@...dia.com>,
 "Joel Fernandes" <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, "Timur Tabi" <ttabi@...dia.com>,
 "Alistair Popple" <apopple@...dia.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
 <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/23] rust: num: add the `fls` operation

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.

---
Cheers,
Benno