On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote: [snip] > > > - Are "holes" in buffer indexes allowed? I don't like the ability to > > > free an arbitrary span of buffers in the queue, it complicates checks > > > in many places and I don't think is worth it... > > > > That's how this ioctl() has been proposed at the Warsaw meeting. > > If my memory is correct, we agreed that buffers created with a single CREATE > call had to be freed all at once by DESTROY. This won't prevent holes though, > as applications could call CREATE three times and then free buffers allocated > by the second call. Yes, I think, you're right. Currently I don't track those creation sets... Do we really want that? What does it give us? Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- 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
