Hi Hans, At first glance this looks fine. But making changes in videobuf is always scary :-) so I hope Marek can look at this as well. How well was this tested? I'll try do test this as well. Regards, Hans On 08/31/2014 12:19 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > All the infrastructure for this is already there, and despite our desires for > the old videobuf code to go away, it is currently still in use in 18 drivers. > > Allowing reqbufs(0) makes these drivers behave consistent with modern drivers, > making live easier for userspace, see e.g. : > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735660 > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c | 11 ++++++----- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c > index fb5ee5d..b91a266 100644 > --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c > +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c > @@ -441,11 +441,6 @@ int videobuf_reqbufs(struct videobuf_queue *q, > unsigned int size, count; > int retval; > > - if (req->count < 1) { > - dprintk(1, "reqbufs: count invalid (%d)\n", req->count); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > - > if (req->memory != V4L2_MEMORY_MMAP && > req->memory != V4L2_MEMORY_USERPTR && > req->memory != V4L2_MEMORY_OVERLAY) { > @@ -471,6 +466,12 @@ int videobuf_reqbufs(struct videobuf_queue *q, > goto done; > } > > + if (req->count == 0) { > + dprintk(1, "reqbufs: count invalid (%d)\n", req->count); > + retval = __videobuf_free(q); > + goto done; > + } > + > count = req->count; > if (count > VIDEO_MAX_FRAME) > count = VIDEO_MAX_FRAME; > -- 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
