linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/6] iio: core: Match iio_device_claim

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: <CAHp75VerpV6u8DgQH53a=2eAPQGk4KgFobXTueh90EBnFL=BTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 17:05:29 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
Cc: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>, 
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, 
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>, 
	Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@...log.com>, Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>, 
	Shrikant Raskar <raskar.shree97@...il.com>, Per-Daniel Olsson <perdaniel.olsson@...s.com>, 
	David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, 
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/6] iio: core: Match iio_device_claim_*() return semantics

On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 4:22 PM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-12-03 at 14:18 -0500, Kurt Borja wrote:
> > In order to improve API consistency with conditional locks, use
> > true/false return semantics in iio_device_claim_buffer_mode().
> >
> > This also matches iio_device_claim_direct() return semantics.

> Even if the rest gets a NACK, I think at least this patch makes sense. In fact I
> would even extend it so that we have the same inline API with proper annotations:
>
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.18/source/include/linux/iio/iio.h#L679
>
> So it really has the same semantics as iio_device_claim_direct()

I remember I looked into this when Jonathan provided an API, but I
have no memory of why we have the -EBUSY which is not used in the
callers.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko