Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/8] [media] v4l2-core: Fine-tuning for some function implementations | From | Hans Verkuil <> | Date | Mon, 2 Jan 2017 15:54:21 +0100 |
| |
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 <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> >> 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.
Regards,
Hans
| |