On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 11:07:24AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 10:57:44AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

quoted

The idea is nice, but I don't like the API.  The "_overflow" feels too
specific because maybe we could check for other things in the future.
Normally boolean macros should say they are boolean in the name and I
would prefer if it returned zero on failure.

	if (!checked_shift(dest, mask, shift)) {
	if (!shift_ok(dest, mask, shift)) {
	if (!safe_shift(dest, mask, shift)) {

Huh...  It turns out I put the argument order different as well.

If we wanted to keep it returning 1 on failure then some other names
are:

	if (shift_failed(dest, mask, shift)) {
	if (shift_error(dest, mask, shift)) {
	if (shift_overflow(dest, mask, shift)) {

I think this ship has sailed, the convention for these tests is
already established in overflow.h. ie:

check_add_overflow
check_sub_overflow
check_mul_overflow

Jason