On 06/28/16 13:48, Andrey Utkin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:12:42AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: >> Andrey, >> >> Since you are the original author, can you give me your Signed-off-by line? > > No, as increasing buffer size by few kilobytes doesn't change anything. I've > increased it from 200 to 204, then found new occurances of the issue, > then increased it again and again by few kilobytes. Then I got that this > is not a (nice) solution, and have never came back to this. Maybe > doubling current buffer size would make users forget about this, but I'm > not sure maintainers would be glad with such patch. I don't care. Right now it doesn't work. The cause is that the buffers are too small to handle the worst-case situation. So if doubling the size makes it work, then that's perfectly OK. Memory is cheap these days. If it will fail, then that's much worse than consuming a few meg more. Ideally you can calculate what the worst-case size is, but I expect that to be quite difficult if not impossible. Regards, Hans -- 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
