Hi Marek, I think there is a typo in this patch: On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 09:12, Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]> wrote: > __buffer_in_use() might be called for empty/uninitialized buffer in the > following scenario: REQBUF(n, USER_PTR), QUERYBUF(). This patch fixes > kernel ops in such case. > > Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <[email protected]> > CC: Pawel Osciak <[email protected]> > > --- > drivers/media/video/videobuf2-core.c | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/media/video/videobuf2-core.c > b/drivers/media/video/videobuf2-core.c > index d8affb8..cdbbab7 100644 > --- a/drivers/media/video/videobuf2-core.c > +++ b/drivers/media/video/videobuf2-core.c > @@ -284,14 +284,14 @@ static bool __buffer_in_use(struct vb2_queue *q, struct > vb2_buffer *vb) > { > unsigned int plane; > for (plane = 0; plane < vb->num_planes; ++plane) { > + void mem_priv = vb->planes[plane].mem_priv;
Shouldn't this be void * instead of just void? > /* > * If num_users() has not been provided, call_memop > * will return 0, apparently nobody cares about this > * case anyway. If num_users() returns more than 1, > * we are not the only user of the plane's memory. > */ > - if (call_memop(q, plane, num_users, > - vb->planes[plane].mem_priv) > 1) > + if (mem_priv && call_memop(q, plane, num_users, mem_priv) > 1) > return true; > } > return false; > -- > 1.7.1.569.g6f426 > > -- Best regards, Pawel Osciak -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
