Hi Jon,
Thanks for your patch. I agree I'm not particularly proud of how
allocation looks like right now and of the "first structure field"
requirement. I had similar design dilemmas, but have to agree with
Marek here though. Please see my explanation below.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 09:39, Jonathan
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:09:41 +0200
Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Thanks for your work! I really appreciate your effort for making the kernel
> code better. :) However I would like to get some more comments before making
> the final decision.
That's fine - it *was* an RFC, after all...:)
> The main
Hello,
On Friday, June 24, 2011 10:19 PM Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Here's a little something I decided to hack on rather than addressing all
> the real work I have to do.
>
> Videobuf2 currently manages buffer allocation for drivers, even though
> drivers typically encapsulate the vb2_buffer inst
Here's a little something I decided to hack on rather than addressing all
the real work I have to do.
Videobuf2 currently manages buffer allocation for drivers, even though
drivers typically encapsulate the vb2_buffer instance in a larger
structure; that requires vb2 to know the driver's structure
