On 26.10.2023 00:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 25 Oct 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 25.10.2023 16:50, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> Ok, I'll send a revised version using MASK_LOWEST_BIT, taking into >>> account also the >>> other comments about the explanation on the macro definition >>> (which some IDEs even show when hovering on its usage, which could >>> partially address >>> the latter concern). >> >> You're of course free to do so, but since - as indicated before - >> MASK_LOWEST_BIT() imo isn't a better name than LOWEST_BIT(), I'll >> continue to object. > > Jan if you are OK with that I'll ask Julien to break the tie and pick > the name to use. Julien can you please help us move forward?
Hmm, I'm having trouble seeing us at the point of breaking ties yet. First we need naming suggestions which actually unambiguously describe what's being done by the macro. I gave one suggestion which I think fulfills this property, but is a little too long for my taste. I gave another suggestion with a far-off but shorter name, which I can appreciate isn't liked. I've not seen other suggestions fulfilling this base criteria. Jan
