drivers/media/platform/atmel/atmel-isi.c | 8 ++------ drivers/media/platform/st/stm32/stm32-dcmi.c | 8 ++------ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
This series converts media drivers to use the newly introduced[1] devm_kmemdup_array() helper. This depends on changes available on immutable tag[2]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250212062513.2254767-1-raag.jadav@intel.com [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/Z7xGpz3Q4Zj6YHx7@black.fi.intel.com v2: Split patch series per subsystem Raag Jadav (2): media: atmel-isi: use devm_kmemdup_array() media: stm32-dcmi: use devm_kmemdup_array() drivers/media/platform/atmel/atmel-isi.c | 8 ++------ drivers/media/platform/st/stm32/stm32-dcmi.c | 8 ++------ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) base-commit: b8c38ccb2ca52b9a38cfeb9f89abab5d6e713221 -- 2.34.1
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 01:06:47PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > This series converts media drivers to use the newly introduced[1] > devm_kmemdup_array() helper. This depends on changes available on > immutable tag[2]. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250212062513.2254767-1-raag.jadav@intel.com > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/Z7xGpz3Q4Zj6YHx7@black.fi.intel.com Bump, anything I can do to move this forward? Raag
Hi Raag, On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 08:45:12AM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 01:06:47PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > > This series converts media drivers to use the newly introduced[1] > > devm_kmemdup_array() helper. This depends on changes available on > > immutable tag[2]. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250212062513.2254767-1-raag.jadav@intel.com > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/Z7xGpz3Q4Zj6YHx7@black.fi.intel.com > > Bump, anything I can do to move this forward? The patches these depend on (those adding devm_kmemdup_array()) aren't in the Media tree yet. They don't seem urgent though so I'd just wait. Speaking of the patches themselves: I'd use *array instead of array[0] for sizeof argument. -- Regards, Sakari Ailus
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:53:57AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Hi Raag, > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 08:45:12AM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 01:06:47PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > This series converts media drivers to use the newly introduced[1] > > > devm_kmemdup_array() helper. This depends on changes available on > > > immutable tag[2]. > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250212062513.2254767-1-raag.jadav@intel.com > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/Z7xGpz3Q4Zj6YHx7@black.fi.intel.com > > > > Bump, anything I can do to move this forward? > > The patches these depend on (those adding devm_kmemdup_array()) aren't in > the Media tree yet. They don't seem urgent though so I'd just wait. I was hoping the immutable tag would be useful here. But sure, no problem. > Speaking of the patches themselves: I'd use *array instead of array[0] for > sizeof argument. I know it doesn't matter much to the compiler but since the source itself is an array here, doesn't [0] make more sense? Raag
Hi Raag, On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 08:31:12AM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:53:57AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > Hi Raag, > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 08:45:12AM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 01:06:47PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > > This series converts media drivers to use the newly introduced[1] > > > > devm_kmemdup_array() helper. This depends on changes available on > > > > immutable tag[2]. > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250212062513.2254767-1-raag.jadav@intel.com > > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/Z7xGpz3Q4Zj6YHx7@black.fi.intel.com > > > > > > Bump, anything I can do to move this forward? > > > > The patches these depend on (those adding devm_kmemdup_array()) aren't in > > the Media tree yet. They don't seem urgent though so I'd just wait. > > I was hoping the immutable tag would be useful here. But sure, no problem. > > > Speaking of the patches themselves: I'd use *array instead of array[0] for > > sizeof argument. > > I know it doesn't matter much to the compiler but since the source itself > is an array here, doesn't [0] make more sense? The element at index 0 isn't anyhow special in this respect so I do prefer *array instead. In practice it works either way of course. -- Regards, Sakari Ailus
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.