[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6f5916dd-63f6-5d19-13f4-edd523205a1f@xs4all.nl>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2020 11:10:00 +0100
From: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Pawel Osciak <posciak@...omium.org>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 01/11] videobuf2: add cache management members
On 07/03/2020 10:46, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/03/06 14:57), Hans Verkuil wrote:
> [..]
>>> * @lock: pointer to a mutex that protects the &struct vb2_queue. The
>>> * driver can set this to a mutex to let the v4l2 core serialize
>>> * the queuing ioctls. If the driver wants to handle locking
>>> @@ -564,6 +573,7 @@ struct vb2_queue {
>>> unsigned requires_requests:1;
>>> unsigned uses_qbuf:1;
>>> unsigned uses_requests:1;
>>> + unsigned allow_cache_hints:1;
>
> Shall I use "unsigned int" here instead of "unsigned"?
The vb2_queue bitfields are the only places in that header were 'unsigned' is
used. I think that that should be fixed in a separate patch. It's nice to have
it consistent.
Put that patch in the beginning of the series, that way I can pick it up in the
next pull request.
Regards,
Hans
>
> -ss
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists