Hi,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Friday 02 December 2011 17:12:56 Ming Lei wrote:
>> +/**
>> + * struct v4l2_fd_result - VIDIOC_G_FD_RESULT argument
>> + * @buf_index: entry, index of v4l2_buffer for face detection
>> + * @face_cnt: return, how many faces detected from the @buf_index
>> + * @fd: return, result of faces' detection
>> + */
>> +struct v4l2_fd_result {
>> + __u32 buf_index;
>> + __u32 face_cnt;
>> + __u32 reserved[6];
>> + struct v4l2_fd_detection *fd;
>> +};
>
>
> This data structure is not 32/64 bit safe: running a 64 bit kernel with 32 bit
> user space will see an incompatible layout.
I agree that this is not 32/64 bit safe, but I understand lib32 can handle
this correctly, otherwise many 32bit applications can't run on current
64bit kernel
since many kernel structures used by user space contained pointer,
such as struct v4l2_buffer, struct v4l2_ext_controls in v4l2 ABI.
> One way to solve this is to remove the pointer and just start the array
> directly after the __u32 members. Alternatively, you can use a __u64
> to pass the pointer in an integer representation.
So I think this need not to be solved.
>
> A nicer interface from the data structure perspective would be to
> get rid of the array altogether and always return exactly one face.
I choose to return array to user space since v4l2 ioctl has provided
this kind of support, see video_usercopy().
thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
