Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-54037-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:44:14 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
	Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
	Marco Elver <elver@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] overflow: Introduce add_wrap(), sub_wrap(), and
 mul_wrap()
Message-ID: <202402051443.A813E4D@keescook>
References: <20240205090854.make.507-kees@kernel.org>
 <20240205091233.1357377-2-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20240205202145.GB2220@sol.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240205202145.GB2220@sol.localdomain>

On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 12:21:45PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 01:12:30AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] overflow: Introduce add_wrap(), sub_wrap(), and mul_wrap()
> 
> Maybe these should be called wrapping_add, wrapping_sub, and wrapping_mul?
> Those names are more grammatically correct, and Rust chose those names too.

Sure, that works for me. What bout the inc_wrap() and dec_wrap() names?
I assume wrapping_inc() and wrapping_dec() ?

-- 
Kees Cook