Re: [PATCH 1/5] lib/sort: Make swap functions more generic

[George Spelvin]

>> 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.