Re: [XEN PATCH][for-4.19 v3 1/8] xen/include: add macro LOWEST_BIT

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 26/10/2023 11:32, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > On 26/10/2023 08:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > 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
> > 
> > Any name is fine with me. ISOLATE_LOW_BIT may be longish, but the macro
> > would be used
> > in just a few places for a specific reason, so the loss in readability is
> > probably not
> > that high.
> 
> +1. It doesn't seem we will be able to find a name that 100% fit all the
> criteria. So of all the choice, my preference would be ISOLATE_LOW_BIT().

It is clear enough, so +1