Merged
Conversation
… a buffer and then to fill that buffer should now be accounted for
Open
swlynch99
approved these changes
Mar 5, 2026
Contributor
|
This looks good to me! Thanks for the fix! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
For any API that the docs indicate should be called twice, first to populate an in/out variable to calculate the buffer size needed to complete the second call which will fill the buffer, this PR will account for the potential for the first call to return
nvmlReturn_enum_NVML_ERROR_INSUFFICIENT_SIZE(7) as is allowed by the docs.To achieve this I've moved the conversion from
nvmlReturn_ttoNvmlErrorto animpl Fromand added a second version of thenvml_trywhich will consider both 0 and 7 success cases.I attempted to find all cases where the pattern exists today and update those with this new
nvml_try_countin stead of either the manualmatchstatements or lack there of.please let me know if there is a different way you'd like this problem solved
Closes #127