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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260111113305.415941e4@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2026 11:33:05 +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 v2 3/7] iio: core: Match iio_device_claim_*() semantics
 and implementation

On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 13:44:35 -0500
"Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@...il.com> wrote:

> On Sat Dec 27, 2025 at 1:24 PM -05, David Lechner wrote:
> > 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()?
> >  
> 
> Yes, that's better.
> 
Agreed. That's nice.