linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] iio: introduce IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH

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]

Message-ID: <aAc47RW0yw97K5sZ@surfacebook.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 09:36:29 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] iio: introduce IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS

Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 05:40:41PM -0500, David Lechner kirjoitti:
> On 4/19/25 11:33 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 05:58:32PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:

...

> >> +/**
> >> + * IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS() - Declare a buffer with timestamp
> >> + * @type: element type of the buffer
> >> + * @name: identifier name of the buffer
> >> + * @count: number of elements in the buffer
> >> + *
> >> + * Declares a buffer that is safe to use with iio_push_to_buffer_with_ts(). In
> >> + * addition to allocating enough space for @count elements of @type, it also
> >> + * allocates space for a s64 timestamp at the end of the buffer and ensures
> >> + * proper alignment of the timestamp.
> >> + */
> >> +#define IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS(type, name, count) \
> >> +	type name[ALIGN((count), sizeof(s64) / sizeof(type)) \
> >> +		  + sizeof(s64)/ sizeof(type)] __aligned(sizeof(s64))
> > 
> > Missing space
> 
> Sorry, but my eyes can't find any missing space. Can you be more specific?

As far as I can see it's missed after sizeof(s64)
Also I don't like to see the leading operators (like +, -, *, &).

> > and I would rather to see [...] on the same line independently on> the size as it will give better impression on what's going on here.
> 
> As long as Jonathan doesn't mind the long line. :-)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko