[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6a3a4a79-d428-f5d9-87e0-97fd91b75c2a@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 22:05:44 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
"Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/34] [media] DaVinci-VPFE-Capture: Improve another size
determination in vpfe_enum_input()
>> @@ -1091,7 +1091,7 @@ static int vpfe_enum_input(struct file *file, void *priv,
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> sdinfo = &vpfe_dev->cfg->sub_devs[subdev];
>> - memcpy(inp, &sdinfo->inputs[index], sizeof(struct v4l2_input));
>> + memcpy(inp, &sdinfo->inputs[index], sizeof(*inp));
>
> If I am not mistaken this can be written as:
>
> *inp = sdinfo->inputs[index];
>
> Much better.
At which position would you like to integrate a second approach for such a change
from this patch series?
* Do you expect me to send a "V2" for the whole series?
* Will an update step be appropriate if I would rebase it on other
recently accepted suggestions?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists