On 09/18/15 12:08, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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? Yes. > 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. Agreed. Thanks again for working on this! Regards, Hans -- 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
