linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] iio: pressure: Add triggered buffer support for BMP280 driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20240320213505.GB52721@vamoiridPC>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 22:35:05 +0100
From: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com>, jic23@...nel.org,
	lars@...afoo.de, ang.iglesiasg@...il.com, mazziesaccount@...il.com,
	ak@...klinger.de, petre.rodan@...dimension.ro, phil@...pberrypi.com,
	579lpy@...il.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
	semen.protsenko@...aro.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] iio: pressure: Add triggered buffer support for
 BMP280 driver

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:25:46PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 06:46:02PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 01:16:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 01:29:25AM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > >  	/*
> > > > -	 * Maximum number of consecutive bytes read for a temperature or
> > > > -	 * pressure measurement is 3.
> > > > +	 * Maximum number of a burst read for temperature, pressure, humidity
> > > > +	 * is 8 bytes.
> > > >  	 */
> > > > -	if (val_size > 3)
> > > > +	if (val_size > 8)
> > > 
> > > sizeof() / new definition for the buf[] size?
> > 
> > In a previous commit that I was fixing this SPI driver, Jonathan had mentioned
> > that there is no need for a specific definition since it will only be used
> > here so that's why I kept it as is.
> 
> It seems not only here, but also in the buf[] definition in the struct.
> 

You are totally right, I didn't think of that!
It makes sense to use a definition.

Cheers,
Vasilis

> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 
>