On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 01:48:21PM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-02-12 at 12:31 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 07:08:20PM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > > - if (xfer->tx_buf || xfer->rx_buf) {
> > > + if ((xfer->tx_buf || xfer->rx_buf) && xfer->len) {
> > I think the issue here is more that some users were passing in buffers
> > with zero length transfers, the above check was already intended to
> > catch this case but was working on the assumption that if there was
> > nothing to transfer then no buffer would be provided.
> Fair enough, maybe it makes sense to move the check into __spi_validate() and
> propagate an error upwards?
No, I think it's fine - there's probably some sensible use case with
drivers reusing a statically allocated transfer/buffer set for multiple
operations and just tweaking the length as needed which seems a bit
weird but I can't think of a reason not to allow it. Your patch is
currently queued, all being well it'll get tested & pushed out later
today.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
