On Wednesday 03 July 2013 02:01:59 Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 03:40:14PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > ... > > > Since the payloads are larger I am less concerned about speed. There is > > one problem, though: if you dequeue the event and the buffer that should > > receive the payload is too small, then you have lost that payload. You > > can't allocate a new, larger, buffer and retry. So this approach can only > > work if you really know the maximum payload size. > > > > The advantage is also that you won't lose payloads. > > Forgot to answer this one --- I think it's fair to assume the user knows the > maximum size of the payload. What we also could do in such a case is to > return the error (e.g. ENOSPC) and put the required size to the large event > size field. But first someone must come up with a variable size event > without well defined maximum size for this to make much sense. And while we're discussing use cases, Hans, what are you current use cases for >64 bytes event payloads ? -- 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
