Em 24-06-2011 18:10, Stefan Richter escreveu: > On Jun 24 Devin Heitmueller wrote: >> Really, this is all about applications being able to jam a hack into >> their code that translates to "don't call this ioctl() with some >> particular argument if it's driver W less than version X, because the >> driver had a bug that is likely to panic the guy's PC". Sure, it's a >> crummy solution, but at this point it's the best that we have got. > > The second best. The best that we have got is that the user runs a fixed > kernel. > > Anyway; if this is the only purpose that this interface version¹ serves, > then Mauro's subsystem-centralized solution has the benefit that it > eliminates mistakes due to oversight by individual driver authors. > Especially because the kind of implementation behavior changes that are > tracked by this type of version datum are sometimes just discovered or > documented in hindsight. On the other hand, Mauro's solution is redundant > to the uname(2) syscall. Yes. That's why my initial proposal were to add some value to it by not associating it with the kernel version, but with a number that will be incremented only if the V4L2 API changes. > > ¹) Yes, it is still an ABI version, nothing less. With all its backwards > and forwards compatibility ramifications. -- 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
