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

[Daniel Almeida]

> On 19 Feb 2025, at 17:23, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 06:22, John Hubbard <jhubb...@nvidia.com> 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.


My humble suggestion here is to use the same nomenclature. `upper_32_bits` and
`lower_32_bits` immediately and succinctly informs the reader of what is going 
on.

— Daniel