On Mon, 2025-03-10 at 20:04 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 08:34:50 +0000 > Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2025-03-09 at 18:20 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Check that total_len argument against iio_dev->scan_bytes. > > > > > > The size needs to be at least as big as the scan. It can be larger, > > > which is typical if only part of fixed sized storage is used due to > > > a subset of channels being enabled. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > include/linux/iio/buffer.h | 13 +++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/iio/buffer.h b/include/linux/iio/buffer.h > > > index 3b8d618bb3df..75d5e58b646b 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/iio/buffer.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/iio/buffer.h > > > @@ -45,6 +45,19 @@ static inline int iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp(struct > > > iio_dev *indio_dev, > > > return iio_push_to_buffers(indio_dev, data); > > > } > > > > > > +static inline int iio_push_to_buffers_with_ts(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, > > > + void *data, size_t total_len, > > > + int64_t timestamp) > > > +{ > > > > Kind of a nitpick but what about data_len as the size relate to *data? > Maybe data_total_len? I kind of want to make people wonder what the total Fine by me... It is starting to get a bit verbose but I guess still on the acceptable side of things. - Nuno Sá