Hi Jon,
Thanks for your patch. I agree I'm not particularly proud of how
allocation looks like right now and of the first structure field
requirement. I had similar design dilemmas, but have to agree with
Marek here though. Please see my explanation below.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 09:39, Jonathan
Hello,
On Friday, June 24, 2011 10:19 PM Jonathan Corbet wrote:
Here's a little something I decided to hack on rather than addressing all
the real work I have to do.
Videobuf2 currently manages buffer allocation for drivers, even though
drivers typically encapsulate the vb2_buffer instance
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:09:41 +0200
Marek Szyprowski m.szyprow...@samsung.com wrote:
Thanks for your work! I really appreciate your effort for making the kernel
code better. :) However I would like to get some more comments before making
the final decision.
That's fine - it *was* an RFC, after
Here's a little something I decided to hack on rather than addressing all
the real work I have to do.
Videobuf2 currently manages buffer allocation for drivers, even though
drivers typically encapsulate the vb2_buffer instance in a larger
structure; that requires vb2 to know the driver's
