>> Will the software evolution be continued for related source files?
>> Are there any update candidates left over in the directory “v4l2-core”?
>
> Sorry, I don't understand the question.
I try to explain my view again.
> We don't want to touch the videobuf-* files unless there is a very good
On 22/09/17 22:08, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Sorry Markus, just stay away from the videobuf-* sources.
>
> Will the software evolution be continued for related source files?
> Are there any update candidates left over in the directory “v4l2-core”?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. We don'
> Sorry Markus, just stay away from the videobuf-* sources.
Will the software evolution be continued for related source files?
Are there any update candidates left over in the directory “v4l2-core”?
Regards,
Markus
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:
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 v4l
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 allocat
6 matches
Mail list logo
