Hi Hans, On Thursday 07 April 2011 09:50:13 Hans Verkuil wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote: [snip] > >> Regarding DESTROY_BUFS: perhaps we should just skip this for now and wait > >> for the first use-case. That way we don't need to care about holes. I > >> don't like artificial restrictions like 'no holes'. If someone has a good > >> use-case for selectively destroying buffers, then we need to look at this > >> again. > > > > Sorry, skip what? skip the ioctl completely and rely on REQBUFS(0) / > > close()? > > Yes. I don't really like that as it would mix CREATE and REQBUFS calls. Applications should either use the old API (REQBUFS) or the new one, but not mix both. The fact that freeing arbitrary spans of buffers gives us uneasy feelings might be a sign that the CREATE/DESTROY API is not mature enough. I'd rather try to solve the issue now instead of postponing it for later and discover that our CREATE API should have been different. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
