Re: [PATCH 0/5] Pushdown bkl from v4l ioctls

2010-05-01 Thread Hans Verkuil
On Thursday 29 April 2010 09:10:42 Laurent Pinchart wrote: Hi Hans, On Thursday 29 April 2010 08:44:29 Hans Verkuil wrote: On Thursday 29 April 2010 05:42:39 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: Hi, Linus suggested to rename struct v4l2_file_operations::ioctl into bkl_ioctl to eventually

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Pushdown bkl from v4l ioctls

2010-05-01 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Saturday 01 May 2010 11:55:37 Hans Verkuil wrote: However, I do think it would be better to create a video_ioctl2_bkl rather than add a video_ioctl2_unlocked. The current video_ioctl2 function is already unlocked. So you are subtle changing the behavior of video_ioctl2. Not a good idea

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Pushdown bkl from v4l ioctls

2010-05-01 Thread Alan Cox
I much prefer to keep the bkl inside the v4l2 core. One reason is that I think that we can replace the bkl in the core with a mutex. Still not ideal of course, so the next step will be to implement proper locking in I did look at this a long time ago - it doesn't really work becaue the mutex

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Pushdown bkl from v4l ioctls

2010-05-01 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 11:55:37AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: On Thursday 29 April 2010 09:10:42 Laurent Pinchart wrote: Hi Hans, On Thursday 29 April 2010 08:44:29 Hans Verkuil wrote: On Thursday 29 April 2010 05:42:39 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: Hi, Linus suggested to

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Pushdown bkl from v4l ioctls

2010-04-30 Thread Laurent Pinchart
Hi Hans, On Thursday 29 April 2010 08:44:29 Hans Verkuil wrote: On Thursday 29 April 2010 05:42:39 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: Hi, Linus suggested to rename struct v4l2_file_operations::ioctl into bkl_ioctl to eventually get something greppable and make its background explicit.

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Pushdown bkl from v4l ioctls

2010-04-30 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Thursday 29 April 2010 09:10:42 Laurent Pinchart wrote: On Thursday 29 April 2010 08:44:29 Hans Verkuil wrote: 3) Investigate what needs to be done to replace the bkl with a v4l2-dev.c global mutex. Those drivers that call the bkl themselves should probably be converted to do proper

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Pushdown bkl from v4l ioctls

2010-04-30 Thread Hans Verkuil
On Thursday 29 April 2010 05:42:39 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: Hi, Linus suggested to rename struct v4l2_file_operations::ioctl into bkl_ioctl to eventually get something greppable and make its background explicit. While at it I thought it could be a good idea to just pushdown the bkl to

[PATCH 0/5] Pushdown bkl from v4l ioctls

2010-04-28 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
Hi, Linus suggested to rename struct v4l2_file_operations::ioctl into bkl_ioctl to eventually get something greppable and make its background explicit. While at it I thought it could be a good idea to just pushdown the bkl to every v4l drivers that have an .ioctl, so that we actually remove