Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] lib/find: add find_nth_bit()

[Yury Norov]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 06:46:35PM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 08:28:42PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 6:26 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 1:55 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 6:51 AM Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > > 2) fns() is not good abbreviation, because among ffs (First) and fls
> > > > (Last), fns would be read as Next, which is misleading, I'm not sure
> > > > fnths(), which is correct, is good for readers.
> > >
> > > I agree that fns() may be confusing, but fnths() is even worse to me.
> > 
> > I also think it's not the best choice.
> > 
> > > I expect that it will be mostly used indirectly via find_nth_bit(), and
> > > will not create a lot of confusion for users.
> > 
> > Perhaps in that case we can survive with something else? Naming is hard...
> 
> OK, I'll move it to find.h and call __find_nth_bit().
> 
> Is this the only issue, or I'd wait for more comments?

I looked again, and I think that the structure of the code requires
to have fns() in bitops.h

Just because we can't think out a good name doesn't mean that we
should break existing structure. Let's keep things as is, and if
one day we'll find a better name - we'll rename it.

Regarding this:

> > > I expect that it will be mostly used indirectly via find_nth_bit()

It's not too important what I expect. For available functionality it's
much easier to find a place to use, and breaking people from doing it 
is silly.
 
> Thanks,
> Yury