Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] rust: add useful ops for u64

[Dave Airlie]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 06:22, John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/19/25 4:51 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > Yes, that looks like the optimal way to do this actually. It also
> > doesn't introduce any overhead as the destructuring was doing both
> > high_half() and low_half() in sequence, so in some cases it might
> > even be more efficient.
> >
> > I'd just like to find a better naming. high() and low() might be enough?
> > Or are there other suggestions?
> >
>
> Maybe use "32" instead of "half":
>
>      .high_32()  / .low_32()
>      .upper_32() / .lower_32()
>

The C code currently does upper_32_bits and lower_32_bits, do we want
to align or diverge here?

Dave.