On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:05:36 +0000, David Howells wrote: > Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > One significant difference between both implementations is that the old > > one logs before the actual transfer, while yours logs afterward. While I > > understand this allows you to log the result of the transfer, this also > > means you'll miss the log if the actual transaction locks the system > > (we've seen this before.) Something to think about... > > I could split each into three messages: > > - Write request (has params & data buffer) > - Read request (has params but no data buffer) > - Read reply (has data buffer only) > > It will make the transfer functions more complex, though, and will mean that, > for i2c, you won't get all the replies to the messages in a batch in with the > requests. I can also label the messages with the index number. Mostly I > suspect this won't be a problem. Fine with me, we can leave it as is and revisit if it ever is a problem in practice. -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
