Hello,
On Wednesday, October 19, 2011 8:03 AM Pawel Osciak wrote:
> 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?
Yes, it should be. It looks that I've posted an older version. In the pull
request there is a correct version.
> > /*
> > * 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
--
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung Poland R&D Center
--
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
