[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171117130801.GH19033@jade>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:08:01 -0200
From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...omium.org>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
Pawel Osciak <pawel@...iak.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>,
Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@....com>,
Thierry Escande <thierry.escande@...labora.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 07/11] [media] vb2: add in-fence support to QBUF
2017-11-17 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>:
> Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:49:23 +0900
> Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...omium.org> escreveu:
>
> > > @@ -178,6 +179,12 @@ static int vb2_queue_or_prepare_buf(struct
> > > vb2_queue *q, struct v4l2_buffer *b,
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if ((b->fence_fd != 0 && b->fence_fd != -1) &&
> >
> > Why do we need to consider both values invalid? Can 0 ever be a valid fence
> > fd?
>
> Programs that don't use fences will initialize reserved2/fence_fd field
> at the uAPI call to zero.
>
> So, I guess using fd=0 here could be a problem. Anyway, I would, instead,
> do:
>
> if ((b->fence_fd < 1) &&
> ...
>
> as other negative values are likely invalid as well.
We are checking when the fence_fd is set but the flag wasn't. Checking
for < 1 is exactly the opposite. so we keep as is or do it fence_fd > 0.
Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists