On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 11:36 +0100, Brian Starkey wrote: [..] > > @@ -203,9 +215,14 @@ static void __fill_v4l2_buffer(struct vb2_buffer *vb, void *pb) > > b->timestamp = ns_to_timeval(vb->timestamp); > > b->timecode = vbuf->timecode; > > b->sequence = vbuf->sequence; > > - b->fence_fd = 0; > > b->reserved = 0; > > > > + b->fence_fd = 0; > > I didn't understand why we're returning 0 instead of -1. Actually the > doc in patch 10 seems to say it will be -1 or 0 depending on whether > we set one of the fence flags? I'm not sure: > > For all other ioctls V4L2 sets this field to -1 if > ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_IN_FENCE`` and/or ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_OUT_FENCE`` are set, > otherwise this field is set to 0 for backward compatibility. > Well, I think that for backwards compatibility (userspace not knowing about fence_fd field), we should return 0, unless the flags are explicitly set. That is what the doc says and it sounds sane. The bits are implemented in patch 12, but as I mentioned in my reply to patch 10, I will move it to patch 10, for consistency. Thanks, Eze
