Em Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:56:00 +0200
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> On 04/22/2016 04:48 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:31:28 +0200
> > Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> >
> >> On 04/22/2016 04:21 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>> Em Fri, 22 Apr 2016 14:37:07 +0200
> >>> Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> >>>
> >>>> On 04/22/2016 02:31 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>>>> Em Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:19:09 +0200
> >>>>> Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Ricardo,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 04/21/2016 11:15 AM, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote:
> >>>>>>> When using a device is read/write mode, vb2 does not handle properly the
> >>>>>>> first select/poll operation. It allways return POLLERR.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The reason for this is that when this code has been refactored, some of
> >>>>>>> the operations have changed their order, and now fileio emulator is not
> >>>>>>> started by poll, due to a previous check.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Reported-by: Dimitrios Katsaros <patcherwork@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>> Cc: Junghak Sung <jh1009.sung@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>> Fixes: 49d8ab9feaf2 ("media] media: videobuf2: Separate vb2_poll()")
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c | 8 ++++++++
> >>>>>>> drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-v4l2.c | 8 --------
> >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
> >>>>>>> index 5d016f496e0e..199c65dbe330 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -2298,6 +2298,14 @@ unsigned int vb2_core_poll(struct vb2_queue *q, struct file *file,
> >>>>>>> return POLLERR;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /*
> >>>>>>> + * For compatibility with vb1: if QBUF hasn't been called yet, then
> >>>>>>> + * return POLLERR as well. This only affects capture queues, output
> >>>>>>> + * queues will always initialize waiting_for_buffers to false.
> >>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>> + if (q->waiting_for_buffers && (req_events & (POLLIN | POLLRDNORM)))
> >>>>>>> + return POLLERR;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The problem I have with this is that this should be specific to V4L2. The only
> >>>>>> reason we do this is that we had to stay backwards compatible with vb1.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is the reason this code was placed in videobuf2-v4l2.c. But you are correct
> >>>>>> that this causes a regression, and I see no other choice but to put it in core.c.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That said, I would still only honor this when called from v4l2, so I suggest that
> >>>>>> a new flag 'check_waiting_for_buffers' is added that is only set in vb2_queue_init
> >>>>>> in videobuf2-v4l2.c.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So the test above becomes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if (q->check_waiting_for_buffers && q->waiting_for_buffers &&
> >>>>>> (req_events & (POLLIN | POLLRDNORM)))
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's not ideal, but at least this keeps this v4l2 specific.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't like the above approach, for two reasons:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) it is not obvious that this is V4L2 specific from the code;
> >>>>
> >>>> s/check_waiting_for_buffers/v4l2_needs_to_wait_for_buffers/
> >>>
> >>> Better, but still hell of a hack. Maybe we could add a quirks
> >>> flag and add a flag like:
> >>> VB2_FLAG_ENABLE_POLLERR_IF_WAITING_BUFFERS_AND_NO_QBUF
> >>> (or some better naming, I'm not inspired today...)
> >>>
> >>> Of course, such quirk should be properly documented.
> >>
> >> How about 'quirk_poll_must_check_waiting_for_buffers'? Something with 'quirk' in the
> >> name is a good idea.
> >
> > works for me, provided that we add the field as a flag. So it would be like:
> >
> > #define QUIRK_POLL_MUST_CHECK_WAITING_FOR_BUFFERS 0
> >
> > if (test_bit(q->quirk, QUIRK_POLL_MUST_CHECK_WAITING_FOR_BUFFERS) &&
> > q->waiting_for_buffers && (req_events & (POLLIN | POLLRDNORM)))
>
> Why should it be a flag? What is wrong with a bitfield?
>
> Just curious what the reasoning is for that. I don't see any obvious
> advantage of a flag over a bitfield.
Huh? Flags are implemented as bitfields. See the above code: it is
using test_bit() for the new q->quirk flags/bitfield.
Regards,
Mauro
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html