On 26/06/15 11:02, Philipp Zabel wrote: > Am Freitag, den 26.06.2015, 10:28 +0200 schrieb Sylwester Nawrocki: > [...] >>>> > >> How about modifying v4l2_m2m_ioctl_reqbufs() instead ? >>> > > >>> > > The coda, gsc-m2m, m2m-deinterlace, mx2_emmaprp, and sh_veu drivers all >>> > > have their own implementation of vidioc_reqbufs that call >>> > > v4l2_m2m_reqbufs directly. >>> > > Maybe this should be moved into v4l2_m2m_ioctl_reqbufs after all drivers >>> > > are updated to use it instead of v4l2_m2m_reqbufs. >> > >> > In case of some of the above listed drivers it shouldn't be difficult >> > and would be nice to convert to the generic v4l2_m2m_ioctl* callbacks. >> > >> > Anyway, I guess your code change makes sense, just the comment might >> > be a little bit misleading. vq->owner will always be one and the same >> > file handle, unless I'm missing something. > > True. Since the m2m_ctx containing the vb2_queue is attached to the file > handle, this will only ever get called with the same file handle for a > given queue. s/we have a new owner/we have an owner/ ? Sounds good enough to me. -- 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
