[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/8] [media] v4l2-core: Fine-tuning for some function implementations
On 12/27/16 12:51, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Markus,
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 09:41:19PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> From: Markus Elfring <>
>> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 21:30:12 +0100
>> Some update suggestions were taken into account
>> from static source code analysis.
>> Markus Elfring (8):
>> v4l2-async: Use kmalloc_array() in v4l2_async_notifier_unregister()
>> v4l2-async: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in v4l2_async_notifier_unregister()
>> videobuf-dma-sg: Use kmalloc_array() in videobuf_dma_init_user_locked()
>> videobuf-dma-sg: Adjust 24 checks for null values
>> videobuf-dma-sg: Move two assignments for error codes in __videobuf_mmap_mapper()
>> videobuf-dma-sg: Improve a size determination in __videobuf_mmap_mapper()
>> videobuf-dma-sg: Delete an unnecessary return statement in videobuf_vm_close()
>> videobuf-dma-sg: Add some spaces for better code readability in videobuf_dma_init_user_locked()
> I don't really disagree with the videobuf changes as such --- the original
> code sure seems quite odd, but I wonder whether we want to do this kind of
> cleanups in videobuf. Videobuf will be removed likely in not too distant
> future; when exactly, Hans can guesstimate better than me. Cc him.

The videobuf code is frozen as far as I am concerned, and I won't pick up
these cleanup patches. While they look perfectly reasonable, I don't want
to risk any breakage there. The last thing I want to do is to have to debug
in the videobuf code.

Sorry Markus, just stay away from the videobuf-* sources.



 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-02 15:55    [W:0.079 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site