Em 27-06-2010 00:26, Devin Heitmueller escreveu: > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab > <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> would do the trick. Yet, the application is broken, as it is considering a positive >> return as an error. A positive code should never be considered as an error. So, we >> need to fix v4l2-ctl as well (ok, returning 1 is wrong as well, as this is a non-v4l2 >> compliance in this case). > > A strict interpretation of the spec would read that returning zero is > success, -1 is an well-formed error condition, and *ANYTHING* else is > a violation of the spec and an application used for testing compliance > should complain very loudly (which is exactly what it does). > > In effect, the only patch I would consider valid for v4l2-ctl would be > one that makes the error even more LOUD than it already is. It should output it as an API violation, not as a failure on setting the value. That's said, I think that a few ioctl calls used to return positive values under certain special conditions. Not sure if this is a non-compliance or if the API allows it. Cheers, Mauro -- 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
