On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Joe Burks wrote:
>
> Because of the very limited scope of V4L controls, it has been used to
> allow users to adjust camera settings that could not otherwise be
> manipulated. Applications don't write to the proc files, but users
> do. I'll shoot a mes
At 03:27 PM 10/22/2002 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Do user programs actually try to write to these proc files? If no, then
yes, tradition should be broken here.
thanks,
greg k-h
Because of the very limited scope of V4L controls, it has been used to
allow users to adjust camera settings that could
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 03:23:31PM -0700, Joe Burks wrote:
> At 02:30 PM 10/22/2002 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:49:06PM -0700, Joe Burks wrote:
> >> static int
> >> -vicam_write_proc(struct file *file, const char *buffer,
> >> +vicam_write_proc(struct file *file, const char
At 02:30 PM 10/22/2002 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:49:06PM -0700, Joe Burks wrote:
> static int
> -vicam_write_proc(struct file *file, const char *buffer,
> +vicam_write_proc(struct file *file, const char *buf,
>unsigned long count, void *data)
Thanks
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:49:06PM -0700, Joe Burks wrote:
> static int
> -vicam_write_proc(struct file *file, const char *buffer,
> +vicam_write_proc(struct file *file, const char *buf,
>unsigned long count, void *data)
Thanks to Oliver, I just noticed this.
Ick. Please
Am Dienstag, 22. Oktober 2002 21:49 schrieb Joe Burks:
> This is a bug fixing patch against 2.5.44, it contains
>
> John Tyner's simplified vicam_read
> Bug fixes per Oliver Neukum
> Other assorted bug fixes
Very well.
There's an issue still. You put a parser into kernel space. I think
it's correc
