Re: [PATCH 01/16] iio: introduced iio_push_to_buffers_with_ts() that takes a total_len argument.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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







[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [X.org]

  Powered by Linux