On 20/09/2023 16:30, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>
<snip>
>>> num_buffers = min_t(unsigned int, num_buffers,
>>> q->max_allowed_buffers - vb2_get_num_buffers(q));
>>> - first_index = vb2_get_num_buffers(q);
>>> + first_index = bitmap_find_next_zero_area(q->bufs_map, q->max_allowed_buffers,
>>> + 0, num_buffers, 0);
>>> if (first_index >= q->max_allowed_buffers)
>>> return 0;
>>> @@ -675,7 +678,13 @@ static void __vb2_queue_free(struct vb2_queue *q, unsigned int buffers)
>>> struct vb2_buffer *vb2_get_buffer(struct vb2_queue *q, unsigned int index)
>>> {
>>> - if (index < q->num_buffers)
>>> + if (!q->bufs_map || !q->bufs)
>>> + return NULL;
>> I don't think this can ever happen.
>
> I got kernel crash without them.
> I will keep them.
What is the backtrace? How can this happen? It feels wrong that this can be
called with a vb2_queue that apparently is not properly initialized.
>>> +
>>> + return (bitmap_weight(q->bufs_map, q->max_allowed_buffers) > 0);
>> How about:
>>
>> return vb2_get_num_buffers(q) > 0;
>
> vb2_get_num_buffers is defined in videobuf2-core.c, I'm not sure that
> an inline function could depend of a module function.
Not a problem. E.g. v4l2-ctrls.h is full of such static inlines.
Regards,
Hans
