On 09/16/2013 09:52 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: [...] > Interesting. Whilst this obviously results in the removal of a lot of > repeated code, I am nervous about introducing the 'hidden' requirement > that the data buffer passed in must be bigger than is 'apparently' used > in the code calling this. I'm not sure what the right answer is though. Well it's not that hidden, it is clearly documented that the function is going to store the timestamp in the buffer. My first idea was to make storing timestamp a separate function. E.g. like iio_store_timestamp(indio_dev, buf, ts); iio_push_to_buffers(indio_dev, buf); This makes it a bit more explicit that the buffer needs to be large enough to hold the timestamp. But since that function would always be followed by iio_push_to_buffers() I choose to add a function that does both, store the timestamp and push the buffer out. - Las -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
