On 09/16/13 09:19, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > 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. But who reads the docs? :) >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); That was my first thought as well. > > 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. Hmm. I'm more or less convinced though I think moving the buffer allocation into the core (or nearly the core) would be a good way of avoiding any confusion in the long run. > > - 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 > -- 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
