Hi Marek,
I think there is a typo in this patch:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 09:12, Marek Szyprowski
<m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> __buffer_in_use() might be called for empty/uninitialized buffer in the
> following scenario: REQBUF(n, USER_PTR), QUERYBUF(). This patch fixes
> kernel ops in such case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Pawel Osciak <pawel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> drivers/media/video/videobuf2-core.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/video/videobuf2-core.c b/drivers/media/video/videobuf2-core.c
> index d8affb8..cdbbab7 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/video/videobuf2-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/video/videobuf2-core.c
> @@ -284,14 +284,14 @@ static bool __buffer_in_use(struct vb2_queue *q, struct vb2_buffer *vb)
> {
> unsigned int plane;
> for (plane = 0; plane < vb->num_planes; ++plane) {
> + void mem_priv = vb->planes[plane].mem_priv;
Shouldn't this be void * instead of just void?
> /*
> * If num_users() has not been provided, call_memop
> * will return 0, apparently nobody cares about this
> * case anyway. If num_users() returns more than 1,
> * we are not the only user of the plane's memory.
> */
> - if (call_memop(q, plane, num_users,
> - vb->planes[plane].mem_priv) > 1)
> + if (mem_priv && call_memop(q, plane, num_users, mem_priv) > 1)
> return true;
> }
> return false;
> --
> 1.7.1.569.g6f426
>
>
--
Best regards,
Pawel Osciak
--
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
