On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:20:08AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 07:12, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 11:04:54PM -0700, John Tyner wrote: > > > > Please don't remove the proc interface. This is a V4L issue. It's in > > > > there because this is a V4L driver. > > > > > > I saw that you were going to raise the issue on that list. I said the patch > > > can wait. Regardless, though, I think that the driverfs is where this kind > > > of thing is supposed to be going. > > > > Yes, that is true. All of /proc/video should be moving there eventually :) > > Please remember to fix all the application compatibility, and upgrade > everyones user space and answer all the email. This is the wrong time to > do it because V4L is turning into V4L2 currently and V4L2 sorts out many > API things. If it doesn't solve this one then it needs too. > > Mark it down as "excessive force authorised before 2.6.0" but lets see > how the V4L2 things go first
Ok, one of my original questions was if any V4L applications used the current /proc interface. If they do, as you say, then moving them to driverfs would not be a simple thing to do at this time. thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0002en _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
