From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
Cc: "Ethan Tidmore" <ethantidmore06@gmail.com>,
"Lars-Peter Clausen" <lars@metafoo.de>,
"Michael Hennerich" <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>,
"David Lechner" <dlechner@baylibre.com>,
"Nuno Sá" <nuno.sa@analog.com>,
"Andy Shevchenko" <andy@kernel.org>,
linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ad7766: Update to use iio_push_to_buffers_with_ts()
Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 14:43:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260511144336.765f72a5@jic23-huawei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <agGyGgI6vlINm-V8@ashevche-desk.local>
On Mon, 11 May 2026 13:40:26 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2026 at 05:14:04PM -0500, Ethan Tidmore wrote:
> > The old ABI function iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp() is no longer
> > preferred due to it being inherently unsafe.
> >
> > Update to the current standard iio_push_to_buffers_with_ts().
>
> Nice, but there is nothing about correctness of the change. This is quite
> sensitive area which is ABI. Any breakage is a big deal. Have you studied
> the case deeper? What are the contents of the buffers with the old one and
> new one versus channels enabled? Is timestamp located in the same offset
> in both cases?
>
Lazy hint on this - check the implementations. One's implemented using the
other making these questions straight forward.
More interesting to me would be a statement of why that size is correct one
to pass. That is the most common source of bugs around these changes rather
than data placement issues (good to understand though!) Note that we have
broken data placement by 'cleaning' up the functions themselves in the past
but not just switching from one to the other.
So patch is right but a brief statement that struct ad7766.data is an
embedded array and so we can just take it's size would be nice to have in
the patch description.
Thanks!
Jonathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-11 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-10 22:14 [PATCH] iio: adc: ad7766: Update to use iio_push_to_buffers_with_ts() Ethan Tidmore
2026-05-11 10:40 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-05-11 13:43 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2026-05-11 16:05 ` David Lechner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260511144336.765f72a5@jic23-huawei \
--to=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=Michael.Hennerich@analog.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@intel.com \
--cc=andy@kernel.org \
--cc=dlechner@baylibre.com \
--cc=ethantidmore06@gmail.com \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nuno.sa@analog.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox