Hi Julia,
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:45:43 +0200 (CEST), Julia Lawall wrote:
I found 6 cases where there are more than 2 messages in the array. I
didn't check how many cases where there are two messages but there is
something other than one read and one write.
Perhaps a reasonable option would
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Julia,
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:45:43 +0200 (CEST), Julia Lawall wrote:
I found 6 cases where there are more than 2 messages in the array. I
didn't check how many cases where there are two messages but there is
something other than one read
Please note that I resigned from my position of i2c subsystem
maintainer, so I will not handle this. If you think this is important,
you'll have to resubmit and Wolfram will decide what he wants to do
about it.
OK, I had the impression that the conclusion was that the danger was
I found 6 cases where there are more than 2 messages in the array. I
didn't check how many cases where there are two messages but there is
something other than one read and one write.
Perhaps a reasonable option would be to use
I2C_MSG_READ
I2C_MSG_WRITE
I2C_MSG_READ_OP
I2C_MSG_WRITE_OP
The
Em Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:31:33 +0200 (CEST)
Julia Lawall julia.law...@lip6.fr escreveu:
I found only 15 uses of I2C_MSG_OP, out of 653 uses of one of the three
macros. Since I2C_MSG_OP has the complete set of flags, I think it should
be OK?
One of the uses, in drivers/media/i2c/adv7604.c, is
Hi Julia,
Em Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:31:33 +0200 (CEST)
Julia Lawall julia.law...@lip6.fr escreveu:
I found only 15 uses of I2C_MSG_OP, out of 653 uses of one of the three
macros. Since I2C_MSG_OP has the complete set of flags, I think it should
be OK?
One of the uses, in
I found only 15 uses of I2C_MSG_OP, out of 653 uses of one of the three
macros. Since I2C_MSG_OP has the complete set of flags, I think it should
be OK?
One of the uses, in drivers/media/i2c/adv7604.c, is as follows:
struct i2c_msg msg[2] = { { client-addr, 0, 1, msgbuf0 },
From: Julia Lawall julia.law...@lip6.fr
Introduce use of I2c_MSG_READ/WRITE/OP, for readability.
In the second i2c_msg structure, a length expressed as an explicit constant
is also re-expressed as the size of the buffer, reg.
A simplified version of the semantic patch that makes this change is
Am 07.10.2012 17:38, schrieb Julia Lawall:
From: Julia Lawall julia.law...@lip6.fr
Introduce use of I2c_MSG_READ/WRITE/OP, for readability.
In the second i2c_msg structure, a length expressed as an explicit constant
is also re-expressed as the size of the buffer, reg.
A simplified
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, walter harms wrote:
Am 07.10.2012 17:38, schrieb Julia Lawall:
From: Julia Lawall julia.law...@lip6.fr
Introduce use of I2c_MSG_READ/WRITE/OP, for readability.
In the second i2c_msg structure, a length expressed as an explicit constant
is also re-expressed as the size
Am 07.10.2012 18:44, schrieb Julia Lawall:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, walter harms wrote:
Am 07.10.2012 17:38, schrieb Julia Lawall:
From: Julia Lawall julia.law...@lip6.fr
Introduce use of I2c_MSG_READ/WRITE/OP, for readability.
In the second i2c_msg structure, a length expressed as an
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, walter harms wrote:
Am 07.10.2012 18:44, schrieb Julia Lawall:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, walter harms wrote:
Am 07.10.2012 17:38, schrieb Julia Lawall:
From: Julia Lawall julia.law...@lip6.fr
Introduce use of I2c_MSG_READ/WRITE/OP, for readability.
In the second i2c_msg
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 19:18 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, walter harms wrote:
Am 07.10.2012 18:44, schrieb Julia Lawall:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, walter harms wrote:
Am 07.10.2012 17:38, schrieb Julia Lawall:
Introduce use of I2c_MSG_READ/WRITE/OP, for readability.
struct
Some people thought that it would be nice to have the macros rather than
the inlined field initializations, especially since there is no flag for
write. A separate question is whether an array of one element is useful,
or whether one should systematically use on a simple variable of the
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 20:56 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
Some people thought that it would be nice to have the macros rather than
the inlined field initializations, especially since there is no flag for
write. A separate question is whether an array of one element is useful,
or whether one
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 20:56 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
Some people thought that it would be nice to have the macros rather than
the inlined field initializations, especially since there is no flag for
write. A separate question is whether an array of one
On 08/10/12 08:39, Joe Perches wrote:
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 20:56 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
Some people thought that it would be nice to have the macros rather than
the inlined field initializations, especially since there is no flag for
write. A separate question is whether an array of one
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 23:43 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
Are READ and WRITE the action names? They are really the important
information in this case.
Yes, most (all?) uses of _READ and _WRITE macros actually
perform some I/O.
I2C_MSG_READ_DATA?
On 08/10/12 03:44, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, walter harms wrote:
Am 07.10.2012 17:38, schrieb Julia Lawall:
From: Julia Lawall julia.law...@lip6.fr
Introduce use of I2c_MSG_READ/WRITE/OP, for readability.
In the second i2c_msg structure, a length expressed as an explicit
Em Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:51:58 -0700
Joe Perches j...@perches.com escreveu:
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 23:43 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
Are READ and WRITE the action names? They are really the important
information in this case.
Yes, most (all?)
On 08/10/12 12:56, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:51:58 -0700
Joe Perches j...@perches.com escreveu:
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 23:43 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
Are READ and WRITE the action names? They are really the important
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 23:43 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
Are READ and WRITE the action names? They are really the important
information in this case.
Yes, most (all?) uses of _READ and _WRITE macros actually
22 matches
Mail list logo
