On Monday 30 October 2000 14:26, you wrote:
> > As usual, this is just IMHO, but I think the idea of videodev.c was to
> > be a pretty lightweight wrapper, with the driver doing all the real
> > work.
>
> The multiopen locking in videodev.c was a mistake. I actually fixed the 2.4
> read/write locking on most of the radio devices so removing it shouldnt be
> too tricky.
Hi Alan,
may I ask what would the benefit gained from this would be ?
Does this mean that someone should go over all video drivers and put locks
into them ?
If this was to be done what good is videodev.c ?
Regards
Oliver
_______________________________________________
Video4linux-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list
- [V4L] races in v4l read + write in 2.4 Oliver Neukum
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read + write in 2.4 Justin Schoeman
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read + write in 2.4 Oliver Neukum
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read + write in 2.4 Justin Schoeman
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read + write in 2.... Alan Cox
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read + write ... Oliver Neukum
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read + wr... Alan Cox
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read ... Oliver Neukum
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read ... Alan Cox
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read ... Oliver Neukum
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read ... Alan Cox
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read ... Michel Lanners
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read ... Jeff Garzik
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read ... Jeff Garzik
- [V4L] PATCH: file_operations... Jeff Garzik
- Re: [V4L] races in v4l read ... Alan Cox
