On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is V2 of the V4L2 videobuf-dma-contig USERPTR zero copy patch.
I guess the V4L2 specific bits are pretty simple.
As for the minor mm modifications below,
> --- 0001/mm/memory.c
> +++ work/mm/memory.c 2009-04-28 14:56:43.000000000 +0900
> @@ -3009,7 +3009,6 @@ int in_gate_area_no_task(unsigned long a
>
> #endif /* __HAVE_ARCH_GATE_AREA */
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_IOREMAP_PROT
> int follow_phys(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> unsigned long address, unsigned int flags,
> unsigned long *prot, resource_size_t *phys)
Is it ok with the memory management guys to always build follow_phys()?
> @@ -3063,7 +3062,9 @@ unlock:
> out:
> return ret;
> }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(follow_phys);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_IOREMAP_PROT
> int generic_access_phys(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> void *buf, int len, int write)
> {
How about exporting follow_phys()? This because the user
videobuf-dma-contig.c can be built as a module.
Should I use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() instead of EXPORT_SYMBOL()?
Any comments?
Thanks,
/ magnus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
