From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave.Martin@arm.com (Dave Martin) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:37:54 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v2] ARM: asm: rename logical shift macros push pull into lspush lspull In-Reply-To: References: <1392063589-24111-1-git-send-email-victor.kamensky@linaro.org> <1392063589-24111-2-git-send-email-victor.kamensky@linaro.org> <20140211155437.GC3035@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20140211173754.GE3035@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:09:35PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Dave Martin wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 04:30:01PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Victor Kamensky wrote: > > > > > > > Renames logical shift macros, 'push' and 'pull', defined in > > > > arch/arm/include/asm/assembler.h, into 'lspush' and 'lspull'. > > > > > > I don't have any fundamental objection to the idea, except maybe for the > > > actual names. I just can't come up with anything better though. > > > > For consistency with the get_byte_ stuff, how about: > > > > push -> towards_byte_0 > > pull -> from_byte_0 > > > > That may make the purpose a little clearer, too. > > I don't know if > > mov r0, r1, from_byte_0 #8 > > is that much clearer though. > > > (Assuming I've got them the right way around...) > > As you later noticed you got it wrong. :-) > Most likely because "full from" and "push towards" are common english > constructs. No more so than "pull towards" and "push from". I'll blame it on the fact that the get_byte_ macros have wrong- endian numbering, which I didn't look at carefully enough ;) But I think we proved that my suggestion didn't really make things easier to understand... Cheers ---Dave