[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOMqctS6KaXuX0nS_pO7O80466j-3G8g_MAySdwRcCK10jozFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:38:56 +0100
From: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...il.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Han Xu <han.xu@...escale.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
"Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Gabor Juhos <juhosg@...nwrt.org>,
Bean Huo 霍斌斌 <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
Furquan Shaikh <furquan@...gle.com>,
MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] spi: expose master transfer size limitation.
On 2 December 2015 at 00:12, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:51:06PM -0000, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>
>> +static inline size_t
>> +spi_max_transfer_size(struct spi_device *spi)
>> +{
>> + struct spi_master *master = spi->master;
>> + if (!master->max_transfer_size)
>> + return 0;
>> + return master->max_transfer_size(spi);
>> +}
>
> Can we change this to return SIZE_MAX instead (ie, the maximum value for
> a size_t)? That way callers don't need to worry if there is a limit, if
> they want to handle it they can just unconditionally assume that a limit
> will be provided.
Yes, that sounds reasonable.
Thanks
Michal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists