On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:29:55 GMT
bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16077
2.6.33 -> 2.6.34 performance regression in dvb webcam frame rates.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to
Em 02-06-2010 18:09, Andrew Morton escreveu:
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:29:55 GMT
> bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
>
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16077
>
> 2.6.33 -> 2.6.34 performance regression in dvb webcam frame rates.
I don't think this is a regression. Probably,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab writes:
> Em 02-06-2010 18:09, Andrew Morton escreveu:
>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:29:55 GMT
>> bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
>>
>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16077
>>
>> 2.6.33 -> 2.6.34 performance regression in dvb webcam frame rates.
>
> I d
Hi,
On 06/03/2010 09:03 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Mauro Carvalho Chehab writes:
Em 02-06-2010 18:09, Andrew Morton escreveu:
On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:29:55 GMT
bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16077
2.6.33 -> 2.6.34 performance regression i
Hans de Goede writes:
> I notice in the original bug report that you claim that the lower framerate
> clip with 2.6.34 has "much better quality", could you define this a bit
> better.
Sorry for the confusion, but this wasn't me. I just read the bug report.
Bjørn
--
To unsubscribe from this l
