linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: add spi_sync_single_transfer wrapper for single spi

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:38:31 +0900
From:	Andi Shyti <andi@...zian.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...sung.com>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andi Shyti <andi@...zian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: add spi_sync_single_transfer wrapper for single
 spi_transfer

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:34:53PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 09:43:11AM +0900, Andi Shyti wrote:
> 
> > > > The spi_sync_single_transfer function calls spi_sync_transfer
> > > > with a single spi_transfer element, instead of an array.
> 
> > > So, what's the advantage of using this as opposed to calling
> > > spi_sync_transfer with a 1 for the number of transfers?
> 
> > Not much, but it keeps the code a bit nicer to read for those
> > using spi_sync_transfer with only one spi_transfer. Besides it's
> > also more understandable what the function itself does and there
> > would not be any need to jump into the spi_sync_transfer to check
> > what the number '1' is needed for (for example it's not a boolean 
> > 'true' value).
> 
> I really don't think this has been a big source of confusion for people.

OK, nevermind, then :)

Thanks,
Andi