On 06/28/16 13:48, Andrey Utkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:12:42AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> Andrey,
>>
>> Since you are the original author, can you give me your Signed-off-by line?
>
> No, as increasing buffer size by few kilobytes doesn't change anything. I've
> increased it from 200 to 204, then found new occurances of the issue,
> then increased it again and again by few kilobytes. Then I got that this
> is not a (nice) solution, and have never came back to this. Maybe
> doubling current buffer size would make users forget about this, but I'm
> not sure maintainers would be glad with such patch.
I don't care. Right now it doesn't work. The cause is that the buffers are
too small to handle the worst-case situation. So if doubling the size makes
it work, then that's perfectly OK. Memory is cheap these days. If it will
fail, then that's much worse than consuming a few meg more.
Ideally you can calculate what the worst-case size is, but I expect that to
be quite difficult if not impossible.
Regards,
Hans
--
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
