On 09/01/14 17:36, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/01/2014 03:29 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> 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 ran some tests
Hello,
On 2014-09-01 17:36, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 09/01/2014 03:29 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
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 ran some tests on bttv which a
Hi,
On 09/01/2014 03:29 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> 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 ran some tests on bttv which all ran well.
Note that the code alread
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
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.g
