linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/6] 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: <20251206181121.3bf01809@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2025 18:11:21 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: "Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@...il.com>
Cc: "David Lechner" <dlechner@...libre.com>, "Andy Shevchenko"
 <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>, "Lars-Peter Clausen" <lars@...afoo.de>,
 "Michael Hennerich" <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, "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>, 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 2/6] iio: core: Match iio_device_claim_*() naming

On Thu, 04 Dec 2025 12:35:38 -0500
"Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@...il.com> wrote:

> On Wed Dec 3, 2025 at 4:50 PM -05, David Lechner wrote:
> > On 12/3/25 1:18 PM, Kurt Borja wrote:  
> >> Rename iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() -> iio_device_claim_buffer() to
> >> match iio_device_claim_direct().
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com>
> >> ---  
> > If we decide to do this, I would squash this with the previous patch
> > to make a clean break of it. Although it is helpful to have "mode"
> > in the name if we can keep that without breaking things.  
> 
> Agree, but If rename iio_device_claim_direct() that would be too big and
> I think it should be separate patches.
> 
For the iio_device_claim() there were far to many drivers to do
the conversions in a single patch hence I needed a different name
and took the view the _mode() wasn't that important.

We already had precedence in the _scoped() variant that I was ripping
out (the revert David refers to in the cover letter discussion).

As you say it is probably not worth the effort of putting the _mode()
prefix back and things are inconsistent.

So I think this is on balance the most practical way to get to a
consistent ABI again.  However as suggested, if we agree to go this
way squash with previous patch.

Jonathan