On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 01:17:05PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Seems better.
>
> Toggling the behaviour while video occurs should be tested, to make
> sure it matches expectations.
Right, works already for read(2) but for mmap(2) we need to move the
check to the VIDIOC_DQBUF ioctl(2) then.
I
Seems better.
Toggling the behaviour while video occurs should be tested, to make
sure it matches expectations.
Marcus Glocker wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 11:34:07AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> > Marcus Glocker wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 05:57:51PM +0100, Laurence
On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 11:34:07AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Marcus Glocker wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 05:57:51PM +0100, Laurence Tratt wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 09:23:36AM +0100, Laurence Tratt wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since I recently opened my big fat mouth and
Marcus Glocker wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 05:57:51PM +0100, Laurence Tratt wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 09:23:36AM +0100, Laurence Tratt wrote:
> >
> > > Since I recently opened my big fat mouth and suggested that
> > > "kern.video.record" (analogous to kern.audio.record) might
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 05:57:51PM +0100, Laurence Tratt wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 09:23:36AM +0100, Laurence Tratt wrote:
>
> > Since I recently opened my big fat mouth and suggested that
> > "kern.video.record" (analogous to kern.audio.record) might be a good idea, I
> > decided to put
On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 09:23:36AM +0100, Laurence Tratt wrote:
> Since I recently opened my big fat mouth and suggested that
> "kern.video.record" (analogous to kern.audio.record) might be a good idea, I
> decided to put together a quick prototype (heavily based on the
> kern.audio.record code).
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 06:07:05PM +0200, Solene Rapenne wrote:
> I vote for keeping both so we can enable audio only or video only
> and be sure about what is enabled and able to record our environment
I agree.
I do lots of audio-only calls with one of my colleagues and in that
scenario I'd
On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 09:23:36 +0100
Laurence Tratt :
> Since I recently opened my big fat mouth and suggested that
> "kern.video.record" (analogous to kern.audio.record) might be a good idea, I
> decided to put together a quick prototype (heavily based on the
> kern.audio.record code). This at
> On Sep 19, 2020, at 10:39 AM, Chris Bennett
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 10:14:55AM +0100, Laurence Tratt wrote:
>>
>> I agree that it would simplify the code. The reason that I didn't merge them
>> is because I know that sometimes people want to record audio but not video (I
>>
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 10:14:55AM +0100, Laurence Tratt wrote:
>
> I agree that it would simplify the code. The reason that I didn't merge them
> is because I know that sometimes people want to record audio but not video (I
> doubt that many people record video without audio). Now, admittedly,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 06:50:33AM -0600, Thomas Frohwein wrote:
Hello Thomas,
Thanks for your comments!
> It might be worth considering combining kern.audio.record and
> kern.video.record, as they serve the same purpose (just different
> modalities). I doubt that granular controls with
On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 09:23:36AM +0100, Laurence Tratt wrote:
> Since I recently opened my big fat mouth and suggested that
> "kern.video.record" (analogous to kern.audio.record) might be a good idea, I
I support this suggestion. I think the idea behind it is based on the
same concerns that led
Since I recently opened my big fat mouth and suggested that
"kern.video.record" (analogous to kern.audio.record) might be a good idea, I
decided to put together a quick prototype (heavily based on the
kern.audio.record code). This at least roughly works for me but raises some
questions such as:
13 matches
Mail list logo
