linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: pressure: bmp280: drop sensor

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

Message-ID: <22e934cd-117f-40fb-a788-edcfc0f8b0ba@baylibre.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 17:32:51 -0500
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Nuno Sá
 <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: pressure: bmp280: drop sensor_data array

On 4/22/25 5:19 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 12:22 AM David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/22/25 3:57 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 10:28 PM David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Drop the sensor_data array from struct bmp280_data and replace it using
>>>> local structs in each interrupt handler.
>>>>
>>>> The sensor_data array in struct bmp280_data is not used to share data
>>>> between functions and isn't used for DMA, so there isn't really a need
>>>> to have it in the struct. Instead, we can use the struct pattern for
>>>> scan data in each interrupt handler. This has the advantage of allowing
>>>> us to see the actual layout of each scan buffer for each different type
>>>> of supported sensor. It also avoid juggling values between local
>>>
>>> of the supported
>>
>> I think what I wrote is correct grammar. Same as if I would have written
>> "each type of sensor". I would not write "each type of the sensor".
> 
> Ah, I meant the plural: of the supported sensors. Otherwise are you
> talking only about one sensor?
> 
"each type of the sensors" doesn't sound right to me either.

I am talking about more than one type, not more than one sensor. Sensor just
describes what types I am talking about.

So perhaps we could just avoid it with "each different sensor type".