(Ccing videobuf2 authors)
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 00:09:06 -0300
> Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> -int vb2_queue_init(struct vb2_queue *q)
>> +void vb2_queue_init(struct vb2_queue *q)
>> {
>> BUG_ON(!q);
>> BUG_ON(!q->ops);
>
> If this change goes through in this form, you can add my ack for the
> Marvell piece. But I have to wonder...might it not be better to retain
> the return value and use it to return -EINVAL instead of the seven BUG_ON()
> calls found in that function? It shouldn't be necessary to bring things
> down in this situation, and, who knows, one of those might just be turned
> into a DOS vector with some driver someday.
>
The mentioned BUG_ON() are these:
void vb2_queue_init(struct vb2_queue *q)
{
BUG_ON(!q);
BUG_ON(!q->ops);
BUG_ON(!q->mem_ops);
BUG_ON(!q->type);
BUG_ON(!q->io_modes);
[...]
Unless I'm overlooking something they look fine to me,
since vb2_queue should always be prepared by the driver.
On the other hand, it seems these BUG_ON are inherited from videobuf1
(see videobuf_queue_core_init).
Marek, Pawel: What do you think?
Thanks,
Ezequiel.
--
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
