linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] 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: <f1c1ca8d-7896-4ccd-b59b-8c6c1bf4fa66@baylibre.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2025 12:24:32 -0600
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: 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 v2 3/7] iio: core: Match iio_device_claim_*() semantics
 and implementation

On 12/27/25 12:14 PM, Kurt Borja wrote:
> On Sat Dec 27, 2025 at 9:47 AM -05, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 21:45:21 -0500
>> Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com> wrote:
>>

...

>> Given earlier discussion about this one being rather more tricky
>> to name than the claim_direct because claim_buffer sounds like
>> we are grabbing the buffer, I'm not sure on the best naming to have
>> here. iio_device_claim_buffer_m maybe?  Ugly though and
>> these are super rare so maybe this isn't a particularly major
>> concern.
> 
> Yes, it's a bit ugly, but as I proposed in the cover letter, if we go
> for a full API rename, it shouldn't matter for now?
> 
> What do you think about that?
> 
> I'll go for iio_device_claim_buffer_m() if I can't think of something
> better.

iio_device_try_claim_buffer_mode()?

> 
>>
>> Given I think the people maintaining most out of tree drivers
>> are Analog Devices maybe this is a question Nuno can answer
>> for us?
>