Hi Hans,
At first glance this looks fine. But making changes in videobuf is always scary
:-)
so I hope Marek can look at this as well.
How well was this tested?
I'll try do test this as well.
Regards,
Hans
On 08/31/2014 12:19 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> All the infrastructure for this is already there, and despite our desires for
> the old videobuf code to go away, it is currently still in use in 18 drivers.
>
> Allowing reqbufs(0) makes these drivers behave consistent with modern drivers,
> making live easier for userspace, see e.g. :
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735660
>
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com>
> ---
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c | 11 ++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
> b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
> index fb5ee5d..b91a266 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
> @@ -441,11 +441,6 @@ int videobuf_reqbufs(struct videobuf_queue *q,
> unsigned int size, count;
> int retval;
>
> - if (req->count < 1) {
> - dprintk(1, "reqbufs: count invalid (%d)\n", req->count);
> - return -EINVAL;
> - }
> -
> if (req->memory != V4L2_MEMORY_MMAP &&
> req->memory != V4L2_MEMORY_USERPTR &&
> req->memory != V4L2_MEMORY_OVERLAY) {
> @@ -471,6 +466,12 @@ int videobuf_reqbufs(struct videobuf_queue *q,
> goto done;
> }
>
> + if (req->count == 0) {
> + dprintk(1, "reqbufs: count invalid (%d)\n", req->count);
> + retval = __videobuf_free(q);
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> count = req->count;
> if (count > VIDEO_MAX_FRAME)
> count = VIDEO_MAX_FRAME;
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
