iio_push_to...ts_unaligned(9)

💖 iio_push_to...ts_unaligned(9) 💖

okay so this is the Kernel API Manual page for iio_push_to_buffers_with_ts_unaligned, and it's giving “special buffer-pushing variant” energy. Buckle up, bestie. 🫶

🌸 NAME 🌸

iio_push_to_buffers_with_ts_unaligned — push to registered buffer, no alignment or space requirements. No cap. ✨

✨ SYNOPSIS ✨

int iio_push_to_buffers_with_ts_unaligned (struct iio_dev *indio_dev , const void *data , size_t data_sz , s64 timestamp );

🫶 ARGUMENTS 🫶

• indio_dev — the iio_dev structure for the device. That's your device's little main-character struct. 👑
• data — channel data, and it is excluding the timestamp. Timestamp stays out of this pile, periodt. 🚫
• data_sz — size of data. Literally how big the data is. 📏
• timestamp — timestamp for the sample data. The when of the sample. ⏰

💅 DESCRIPTION 💅

This special variant of iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp does not require space for the timestamp, and it does not require 8 byte alignment of data. Slay for flexibility. ✨

But not me warning you: it does require an allocation on the first call and additional copies on all calls, so it should be avoided if possible. That's the catch, bestie. 😭

🚨 high-maintenance alert: allocation on the first call + extra copies every call = avoid this if you can. Not dramatic, just true. 💀

😴 CONTEXT 😴

May sleep. That's the whole note. 💤

🎀 RETURN 🎀

• 0 on success ✅
• negative error code on failure ❌

🔥 SEE ALSO 🔥

Kernel file: ./drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c — and the bestie lineup is:

• iio_buffer_read(9)
• iio_buffer_poll(9)
• iio_buffer_wakeup_poll(9)
• iio_scan_mask_set(9)
• struct iio_demux_table(9)
• iio_validate_scan_mask_onehot(9)
• iio_push_to_buffers(9)
• iio_buffer_release(9)
• iio_buffer_get(9)
• iio_buffer_put(9)
• iio_device_attach_buffer(9)

---

cute sign-off: source/version is ./drivers/iio, date is October 2026, and this page has officially left the chat. bye bestie 🫶💖