On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:23:33AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Originally I had memset only on the three cases where they were
> needed. Richard, which do you prefer? I don't mind changing it back.
Go ahead and change it back.
Thanks,
Richard
Hi,
Joe Perches writes:
> On Mon, 2019-08-19 at 08:43 -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 03:07:18PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > Also the original patch deletes 2 case entries for
>> > PTP_PIN_GETFUNC and PTP_PIN_SETFUNC and converts them to
>> > PTP_PIN_GETFUNC2 and PTP
On Mon, 2019-08-19 at 08:43 -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 03:07:18PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Also the original patch deletes 2 case entries for
> > PTP_PIN_GETFUNC and PTP_PIN_SETFUNC and converts them to
> > PTP_PIN_GETFUNC2 and PTP_PIN_SETFUNC2 but still uses tests
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 03:07:18PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Also the original patch deletes 2 case entries for
> PTP_PIN_GETFUNC and PTP_PIN_SETFUNC and converts them to
> PTP_PIN_GETFUNC2 and PTP_PIN_SETFUNC2 but still uses tests
> for the deleted case label entries making part of the case
> co
On Sun, 2019-08-18 at 13:11 -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 09:17:20AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Is there a case where this initialization is
> > unnecessary such that it impacts performance
> > given the use in ptp_ioctl?
>
> None of these ioctls are sensitive WRT perf
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 09:17:20AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Is there a case where this initialization is
> unnecessary such that it impacts performance
> given the use in ptp_ioctl?
None of these ioctls are sensitive WRT performance. They are all
setup or configuration, or in the case of the O
On Sat, 2019-08-17 at 08:59 -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:47:11AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > The current version of the IOCTL have a small problem which prevents us
> > from extending the API by making use of reserved fields. In these new
> > IOCTLs, we are now maki
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:47:11AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> The current version of the IOCTL have a small problem which prevents us
> from extending the API by making use of reserved fields. In these new
> IOCTLs, we are now making sure that flags and rsv fields are zero which
> will allow us t
The current version of the IOCTL have a small problem which prevents us
from extending the API by making use of reserved fields. In these new
IOCTLs, we are now making sure that flags and rsv fields are zero which
will allow us to extend the API in the future.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi
---
dri
9 matches
Mail list logo
