On Friday 18 September 2015 11:52:28 Hans Verkuil wrote: > On 09/18/15 11:43, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday 18 September 2015 11:27:40 Hans Verkuil wrote: > >> Ah, OK. Got it. > >> > >> I think this is dependent on the upcoming media workshop next month. If we > >> decide to redesign v4l2_buffer anyway, then we can avoid timeval completely. > >> And the only place where we would need to convert it in the compat code > >> hidden in the v4l2 core (likely v4l2-ioctl.c). > > > > Ah, I think I understood the idea now, I missed that earlier when you mention > > the idea. > > > > So what you are saying here is that you could come up with a new unambiguous > > (using only __u32 and __u64 types and no pointers) format that gets exposed > > to a new set of ioctls, and then change the handling of the existing three > > formats (native 64-bit, traditional 32-bit, and 32-bit with 64-bit time_t) > > so they get converted into the new format by the common ioctl handling code? > > Right. Drivers only see the new struct, and only v4l2-ioctl.c (and possible > v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c) see the old ones. > > BTW, I will probably pick up patches 4 and 6 for 4.4. That should help a bit. Ok, thanks! I guess it's up to Mauro to pick up the first three patches? As I don't see anything more to do for me here until you've had the discussion about the new format, I'll move on to another subsystem now. I have around 70 patches waiting to be submitted, plus the system call series. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
