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
