| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:23:57 -0300
From: Helen Koike <helen.koike@...labora.com>
To: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>,
Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
Hirokazu Honda <hiroh@...omium.org>,
Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas@...fresne.ca>,
Brian Starkey <Brian.Starkey@....com>, kernel@...labora.com,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Fritz Koenig <frkoenig@...omium.org>,
Maxime Jourdan <mjourdan@...libre.com>,
Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] media: v4l2: Add extended buffer operations
Hi Tomasz,
Thank you for your comments,
On 12/14/20 7:36 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:33 AM Helen Koike <helen.koike@...labora.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tomasz,
>>
>>
>> On 11/20/20 8:14 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> Hi Helen,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 04:29:34PM -0300, Helen Koike wrote:
>>>> From: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>
>>>>
>>>> Those extended buffer ops have several purpose:
>>>> 1/ Fix y2038 issues by converting the timestamp into an u64 counting
>>>> the number of ns elapsed since 1970
>>>> 2/ Unify single/multiplanar handling
>>>> 3/ Add a new start offset field to each v4l2 plane buffer info struct
>>>> to support the case where a single buffer object is storing all
>>>> planes data, each one being placed at a different offset
>>>>
>>>> New hooks are created in v4l2_ioctl_ops so that drivers can start using
>>>> these new objects.
>>>>
>>>> The core takes care of converting new ioctls requests to old ones
>>>> if the driver does not support the new hooks, and vice versa.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the timecode field is gone, since there doesn't seem to be
>>>> in-kernel users. We can be added back in the reserved area if needed or
>>>> use the Request API to collect more metadata information from the
>>>> frame.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the patch. Please see my comments inline.
>>
>> Thank you for your detailed review, please see my comments below.
>>
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Helen Koike <helen.koike@...labora.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes in v5:
>>>> - migrate memory from v4l2_ext_buffer to v4l2_ext_plane
>>>> - return mem_offset to struct v4l2_ext_plane
>>>> - change sizes and reorder fields to avoid holes in the struct and make
>>>> it the same for 32 and 64 bits
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v4:
>>>> - Use v4l2_ext_pix_format directly in the ioctl, drop v4l2_ext_format,
>>>> making V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_[OUTPUT,CAPTURE] the only valid types.
>>>> - Drop VIDIOC_EXT_EXPBUF, since the only difference from VIDIOC_EXPBUF
>>>> was that with VIDIOC_EXT_EXPBUF we could export multiple planes at once.
>>>> I think we can add this later, so I removed it from this RFC to simplify it.
>>>> - Remove num_planes field from struct v4l2_ext_buffer
>>>> - Add flags field to struct v4l2_ext_create_buffers
>>>> - Reformulate struct v4l2_ext_plane
>>>> - Fix some bugs caught by v4l2-compliance
>>>> - Rebased on top of media/master (post 5.8-rc1)
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v3:
>>>> - Rebased on top of media/master (post 5.4-rc1)
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - Add reserved space to v4l2_ext_buffer so that new fields can be added
>>>> later on
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-dev.c | 29 ++-
>>>> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ioctl.c | 353 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>> include/media/v4l2-ioctl.h | 26 ++
>>>> include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h | 90 +++++++
>>>> 4 files changed, 476 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-dev.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-dev.c
>>>> index e1829906bc086..cb21ee8eb075c 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-dev.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-dev.c
>>>> @@ -720,15 +720,34 @@ static void determine_valid_ioctls(struct video_device *vdev)
>>>> SET_VALID_IOCTL(ops, VIDIOC_TRY_FMT, vidioc_try_fmt_sdr_out);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + if (is_vid || is_tch) {
>>>> + /* ioctls valid for video and touch */
>>>> + if (ops->vidioc_querybuf || ops->vidioc_ext_querybuf)
>>>> + set_bit(_IOC_NR(VIDIOC_EXT_QUERYBUF), valid_ioctls);
>>>> + if (ops->vidioc_qbuf || ops->vidioc_ext_qbuf)
>>>> + set_bit(_IOC_NR(VIDIOC_EXT_QBUF), valid_ioctls);
>>>> + if (ops->vidioc_dqbuf || ops->vidioc_ext_dqbuf)
>>>> + set_bit(_IOC_NR(VIDIOC_EXT_DQBUF), valid_ioctls);
>>>> + if (ops->vidioc_create_bufs || ops->vidioc_ext_create_bufs)
>>>> + set_bit(_IOC_NR(VIDIOC_EXT_CREATE_BUFS), valid_ioctls);
>>>> + if (ops->vidioc_prepare_buf || ops->vidioc_ext_prepare_buf)
>>>> + set_bit(_IOC_NR(VIDIOC_EXT_PREPARE_BUF), valid_ioctls);
>>>
>>> nit: Could we stick to the SET_VALID_IOCTL() macro and just call it twice,
>>> once for the new and once for the legacy callback?
>>
>> Ack.
>>
>>>
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> if (is_vid || is_vbi || is_sdr || is_tch || is_meta) {
>>>> /* ioctls valid for video, vbi, sdr, touch and metadata */
>>>> SET_VALID_IOCTL(ops, VIDIOC_REQBUFS, vidioc_reqbufs);
>>>> - SET_VALID_IOCTL(ops, VIDIOC_QUERYBUF, vidioc_querybuf);
>>>> - SET_VALID_IOCTL(ops, VIDIOC_QBUF, vidioc_qbuf);
>>>> SET_VALID_IOCTL(ops, VIDIOC_EXPBUF, vidioc_expbuf);
>>>> - SET_VALID_IOCTL(ops, VIDIOC_DQBUF, vidioc_dqbuf);
>>>> - SET_VALID_IOCTL(ops, VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS, vidioc_create_bufs);
>>>> - SET_VALID_IOCTL(ops, VIDIOC_PREPARE_BUF, vidioc_prepare_buf);
>>>> + if (ops->vidioc_querybuf || ops->vidioc_ext_querybuf)
>>>> + set_bit(_IOC_NR(VIDIOC_QUERYBUF), valid_ioctls);
>>>> + if (ops->vidioc_qbuf || ops->vidioc_ext_qbuf)
>>>> + set_bit(_IOC_NR(VIDIOC_QBUF), valid_ioctls);
>>>> + if (ops->vidioc_dqbuf || ops->vidioc_ext_dqbuf)
>>>> + set_bit(_IOC_NR(VIDIOC_DQBUF), valid_ioctls);
>>>> + if (ops->vidioc_create_bufs || ops->vidioc_ext_create_bufs)
>>>> + set_bit(_IOC_NR(VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS), valid_ioctls);
>>>> + if (ops->vidioc_prepare_buf || ops->vidioc_ext_prepare_buf)
>>>> + set_bit(_IOC_NR(VIDIOC_PREPARE_BUF), valid_ioctls);
>>>
>>> Is it valid to check the new callbacks for devices that the new API is not
>>> valid for (e.g. vbi)? Perhaps we could call SET_VALID_IOCTL(ops, <ioctl>,
>>> vidioc_ext_*) in the upper if added in this patch and keep the code above
>>> as is?
>>
>> Just to be clear, the only valid type should be VFL_TYPE_VIDEO right?
>> Ext but API won't support touch devices for instance, right?
>>
>
> Yes, at least at this point. If one needs, it could be added in the
> future, but honestly I don't see much use of the other types these
> days.
Ok, I already updated this in my wip branch for next version.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> SET_VALID_IOCTL(ops, VIDIOC_STREAMON, vidioc_streamon);
>>>> SET_VALID_IOCTL(ops, VIDIOC_STREAMOFF, vidioc_streamoff);
>>>> }
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ioctl.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ioctl.c
>>>> index 14a0def50f8ea..7ecdd9cc1bf48 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ioctl.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ioctl.c
>>>> @@ -527,6 +527,26 @@ static void v4l_print_buffer(const void *arg, bool write_only)
>>>> tc->type, tc->flags, tc->frames, *(__u32 *)tc->userbits);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static void v4l_print_ext_buffer(const void *arg, bool write_only)
>>>> +{
>>>> + const struct v4l2_ext_buffer *e = arg;
>>>> + const struct v4l2_ext_plane *plane;
>>>> + unsigned int i;
>>>> +
>>>> + pr_cont("%lld index=%d, type=%s, flags=0x%08x, field=%s, sequence=%d\n",
>>>> + e->timestamp, e->index, prt_names(e->type, v4l2_type_names),
>>>> + e->flags, prt_names(e->field, v4l2_field_names), e->sequence);
>>>
>>> Should we also print the request FD?
>>
>> Yes, I'll update this for next version.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < VIDEO_MAX_PLANES &&
>>>> + e->planes[i].buffer_length; i++) {
>>>> + plane = &e->planes[i];
>>>> + pr_debug("plane %d: buffer_length=%d, plane_length=%d offset=0x%08x, memory=%s\n",
>>>> + i, plane->buffer_length, plane->plane_length,
>>>> + plane->offset,
>>>> + prt_names(plane->memory, v4l2_memory_names));
>>>
>>> Should we also print mem_offset/userptr/dmabuf_fd?
>>
>> I see they are not printed by v4l_print_buffer(),
>
> offset/userptr are printed in v4l2_print_buffer:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ioctl.c#L494
yes, sorry about that, I saw this later and I already updated it for next version.
>
>> since these fields are in an
>> union, the value of two of them will be invalid (I wonder if this can bring
>> confusion).
>> I also wondered if printing them can't cause a security issue.
>>
>> But I can add those prints if you think it make sense.
>>
>
> We know the memory type, so we can interpret the union appropriately
> and adjust the message printed.
>
> I don't think this poses any security issue, as it prints things that
> belong to the userspace already and are only meaningful in the context
> of the given userspace process.
ok.
>
>>>
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static void v4l_print_exportbuffer(const void *arg, bool write_only)
>>>> {
>>>> const struct v4l2_exportbuffer *p = arg;
>>>> @@ -546,6 +566,15 @@ static void v4l_print_create_buffers(const void *arg, bool write_only)
>>>> v4l_print_format(&p->format, write_only);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static void v4l_print_ext_create_buffers(const void *arg, bool write_only)
>>>> +{
>>>> + const struct v4l2_ext_create_buffers *p = arg;
>>>> +
>>>> + pr_cont("index=%d, count=%d, memory=%s, ", p->index, p->count,
>>>> + prt_names(p->memory, v4l2_memory_names));
>>>> + v4l_print_ext_pix_format(&p->format, write_only);
>>>
>>> Should we also print capabilities and flags?
>>
>> I just saw these prints are called after the ioctl handler, and not before,
>> to I guess it make sense.
>>
>> It is not printed by v4l_print_create_buffers(), I think we can add in both then.
>>
>>>
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static void v4l_print_streamparm(const void *arg, bool write_only)
>>>> {
>>>> const struct v4l2_streamparm *p = arg;
>>>> @@ -1220,6 +1249,143 @@ int v4l2_format_to_ext_pix_format(const struct v4l2_format *f,
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(v4l2_format_to_ext_pix_format);
>>>>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * If mplane_cap is true, b->m.planes should have a valid pointer of a
>>>> + * struct v4l2_plane array, and b->length with its size
>>>> + */
>>>> +int v4l2_ext_buffer_to_buffer(const struct v4l2_ext_buffer *e,
>>>> + struct v4l2_buffer *b, bool mplane_cap)
>>>> +{
>>>> + unsigned int planes_array_size = b->length;
>>>> + struct v4l2_plane *planes = b->m.planes;
>>>> + u64 nsecs;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!mplane_cap && e->planes[1].buffer_length != 0)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + memset(b, 0, sizeof(*b));
>>>> +
>>>> + b->index = e->index;
>>>> + b->flags = e->flags;
>>>> + b->field = e->field;
>>>> + b->sequence = e->sequence;
>>>> + b->memory = e->planes[0].memory;
>>>> + b->request_fd = e->request_fd;
>>>> + b->timestamp.tv_sec = div64_u64_rem(e->timestamp, NSEC_PER_SEC, &nsecs);
>>>> + b->timestamp.tv_usec = (u32)nsecs / NSEC_PER_USEC;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (mplane_cap) {
>>>> + unsigned int i;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!planes || !planes_array_size)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + b->m.planes = planes;
>>>
>>> planes was initialized to b->m.planes at declaration time. Should we
>>> perhaps move its declaration to within this block to make it more clear and
>>> remove this assignment?
>>
>> The variable "planes" is saving the pointer of b->m.planes before we do
>> memset(b, 0, sizeof(*b)), so I can reassing it back if it make sense.
>>
>> I can add a comment to make this more clear.
>>
>
> Right, I think the code is a bit confusing. Should we just pass the
> planes array pointer as a separate argument to the function?
Make sense, this would make sense more clear. I'll update for next version.
>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + if (e->type == V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_CAPTURE)
>>>> + b->type = V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_CAPTURE_MPLANE;
>>>> + else
>>>> + b->type = V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_OUTPUT_MPLANE;
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < VIDEO_MAX_PLANES && i < planes_array_size &&
>>>> + e->planes[i].buffer_length; i++) {
>>>> +
>>>> + if (e->planes[0].memory != e->planes[i].memory)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (e->planes[i].offset)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> Is it really invalid to have a non-zero offset? Shouldn't the data_offset
>>> field of the legacy struct be populated instead, in the cases where it was
>>> defined to be valid?
>>
>> My understanding of data_offset, is that it is used when the hardware can
>> write/read a header to/from the buffer.
>>
>> But this doesn't seem to be used by any driver
>
> This is not true:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/venc.c#L963
Thanks for this pointer.
>
>> , so there is an attempt to
>> repourpose it here:
>>
>> https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/patch/1429040689-23808-2-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com/
>>
>> But this wans't merged.
>>
>> So in the current API, there is no way to specify an offset in the buffer.
>>
>> I guess we can repurpose data_offset first, what do you think?
>>
>
> We need to stick to the original behavior for data_offset, so that an
> encoder has a way to tell the userspace how many bytes of the header
> it needs to skip.
Right, I'll update this for next version.
>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + memset(&b->m.planes[i], 0, sizeof(b->m.planes[i]));
>>>> +
>>>> + if (b->memory == V4L2_MEMORY_MMAP)
>>>> + b->m.planes[i].m.mem_offset = e->planes[i].m.mem_offset;
>>>> + else if (b->memory == V4L2_MEMORY_DMABUF)
>>>> + b->m.planes[i].m.fd = e->planes[i].m.dmabuf_fd;
>>>> + else
>>>> + b->m.planes[i].m.userptr = e->planes[i].m.userptr;
>>>> +
>>>> + b->m.planes[i].bytesused = e->planes[i].plane_length;
>>>
>>> I might be getting the meaning of plane_length wrong, but doesn't this
>>> depend on the direction? If the userspace gives a CAPTURE buffer, it would
>>> have bytesused = 0, but if the kernel returns it, it would have bytesused =
>>> <size of the payload>.
>>
>> You are right, it depends on the direction, thanks for catching this.
>>
>> Also, in the Ext api, we don't have the <size of the payload>, so I'm using the
>> plane_length instead, I'm not sure if there is a better way.
>
> I thought about this for a while and it sounds like in the code added
> by this series, plane_length is basically used as the old bytesused
> and buffer_length as the old length. Would it make sense to just
> preserve the old naming?
Make sense, I thought we could use the length of the plane to other validations,
but we don't need it. I'll preserve bytesused instead.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> + b->m.planes[i].length = e->planes[i].buffer_length;
>>>> + }
>>>> + /* In multi-planar, length contain the number of planes */
>>>> + b->length = i;
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + b->type = e->type;
>>>> + b->bytesused = e->planes[0].plane_length;
>>>> + b->length = e->planes[0].buffer_length;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (e->planes[0].offset)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> Ditto.
>>
>> Ack.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + if (b->memory == V4L2_MEMORY_MMAP)
>>>> + b->m.offset = e->planes[0].m.mem_offset;
>>>> + else if (b->memory == V4L2_MEMORY_DMABUF)
>>>> + b->m.fd = e->planes[0].m.dmabuf_fd;
>>>> + else
>>>> + b->m.userptr = e->planes[0].m.userptr;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(v4l2_ext_buffer_to_buffer);
>>>> +
>>>> +int v4l2_buffer_to_ext_buffer(const struct v4l2_buffer *b,
>>>> + struct v4l2_ext_buffer *e)
>>>> +{
>>>> + memset(e, 0, sizeof(*e));
>>>> +
>>>> + e->index = b->index;
>>>> + e->flags = b->flags;
>>>> + e->field = b->field;
>>>> + e->sequence = b->sequence;
>>>> + e->request_fd = b->request_fd;
>>>> + e->timestamp = b->timestamp.tv_sec * NSEC_PER_SEC +
>>>> + b->timestamp.tv_usec * NSEC_PER_USEC;
>>>> + if (V4L2_TYPE_IS_MULTIPLANAR(b->type)) {
>>>> + unsigned int i;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!b->m.planes)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (b->type == V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_CAPTURE_MPLANE)
>>>> + e->type = V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_CAPTURE;
>>>> + else
>>>> + e->type = V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_OUTPUT;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* In multi-planar, length contain the number of planes */
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < b->length; i++) {
>>>
>>> The design of the new struct implies that the planes describe color planes
>>> and not memory planes, so this code is incorrect, because for non-M format
>>> variants it would fill in only the first plane of the new struct.
>>
>> Yes, as discussed in 1/7, the handling of planes is wrong, I'll correct
>> this for next version.
>>
>>>
>>>> + if (b->memory == V4L2_MEMORY_MMAP)
>>>> + e->planes[i].m.mem_offset = b->m.planes[i].m.mem_offset;
>>>> + else if (b->memory == V4L2_MEMORY_DMABUF)
>>>> + e->planes[i].m.dmabuf_fd = b->m.planes[i].m.fd;
>>>> + else
>>>> + e->planes[i].m.userptr = b->m.planes[i].m.userptr;
>>>> +
>>>> + e->planes[i].memory = b->memory;
>>>> + e->planes[i].buffer_length = b->m.planes[i].length;
>>>> + e->planes[i].plane_length = b->m.planes[i].bytesused;
>>>> + if (b->m.planes[i].data_offset)
>>>> + pr_warn("Ignoring data_offset value %d\n",
>>>> + b->m.planes[i].data_offset);
>>>
>>> Why? As per my comment above, there are valid use cases defined in the spec.
>>
>> Please see my comment about about data_offset.
>>
>>>
>>>> + }
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + e->type = b->type;
>>>> + e->planes[0].memory = b->memory;
>>>> + e->planes[0].plane_length = b->bytesused;
>>>> + e->planes[0].buffer_length = b->length;
>>>> + if (b->memory == V4L2_MEMORY_MMAP)
>>>> + e->planes[0].m.mem_offset = b->m.offset;
>>>> + else if (b->memory == V4L2_MEMORY_DMABUF)
>>>> + e->planes[0].m.dmabuf_fd = b->m.fd;
>>>> + else
>>>> + e->planes[0].m.userptr = b->m.userptr;
>>>
>>> Similar to the MULTIPLANAR case, we should fill in the planes[] entries
>>> corresponding to the number of color planes of the format, e.g. 2 for NV12.
>>
>> Ack.
>>
>>>
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(v4l2_buffer_to_ext_buffer);
>>>> +
>>>> static int v4l_querycap(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> {
>>>> @@ -2473,31 +2639,112 @@ static int v4l_reqbufs(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> return ops->vidioc_reqbufs(file, fh, p);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static int v4l_do_buf_op(int (*op)(struct file *, void *,
>>>> + struct v4l2_buffer *),
>>>> + int (*ext_op)(struct file *, void *,
>>>> + struct v4l2_ext_buffer *),
>>>> + struct file *file, void *fh, struct v4l2_buffer *b)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct v4l2_ext_buffer e;
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = check_fmt(file, b->type);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (op)
>>>> + return op(file, fh, b);
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = v4l2_buffer_to_ext_buffer(b, &e);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = ext_op(file, fh, &e);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + v4l2_ext_buffer_to_buffer(&e, b, V4L2_TYPE_IS_MULTIPLANAR(b->type));
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int v4l_do_ext_buf_op(int (*op)(struct file *, void *,
>>>> + struct v4l2_buffer *),
>>>> + int (*ext_op)(struct file *, void *,
>>>> + struct v4l2_ext_buffer *),
>>>> + struct file *file, void *fh,
>>>> + struct v4l2_ext_buffer *e)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct video_device *vdev = video_devdata(file);
>>>> + struct v4l2_plane planes[VIDEO_MAX_PLANES];
>>>> + struct v4l2_buffer b;
>>>> + bool mplane_cap;
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = check_fmt(file, e->type);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (ext_op)
>>>> + return ext_op(file, fh, e);
>>>> +
>>>> + mplane_cap = !!(vdev->device_caps &
>>>> + (V4L2_CAP_VIDEO_CAPTURE_MPLANE |
>>>> + V4L2_CAP_VIDEO_OUTPUT_MPLANE |
>>>> + V4L2_CAP_VIDEO_M2M_MPLANE));
>>>> + b.m.planes = planes;
>>>> + b.length = VIDEO_MAX_PLANES;
>>>> + ret = v4l2_ext_buffer_to_buffer(e, &b, mplane_cap);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = op(file, fh, &b);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + v4l2_buffer_to_ext_buffer(&b, e);
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static int v4l_querybuf(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> - struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> + struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> {
>>>> - struct v4l2_buffer *p = arg;
>>>> - int ret = check_fmt(file, p->type);
>>>> + return v4l_do_buf_op(ops->vidioc_querybuf, ops->vidioc_ext_querybuf,
>>>> + file, fh, arg);
>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> - return ret ? ret : ops->vidioc_querybuf(file, fh, p);
>>>> +static int v4l_ext_querybuf(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> + struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return v4l_do_ext_buf_op(ops->vidioc_querybuf,
>>>> + ops->vidioc_ext_querybuf, file, fh, arg);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static int v4l_qbuf(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> - struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> + struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> {
>>>> - struct v4l2_buffer *p = arg;
>>>> - int ret = check_fmt(file, p->type);
>>>> + return v4l_do_buf_op(ops->vidioc_qbuf, ops->vidioc_ext_qbuf,
>>>> + file, fh, arg);
>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> - return ret ? ret : ops->vidioc_qbuf(file, fh, p);
>>>> +static int v4l_ext_qbuf(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> + struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return v4l_do_ext_buf_op(ops->vidioc_qbuf, ops->vidioc_ext_qbuf,
>>>> + file, fh, arg);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static int v4l_dqbuf(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> - struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> + struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> {
>>>> - struct v4l2_buffer *p = arg;
>>>> - int ret = check_fmt(file, p->type);
>>>> + return v4l_do_buf_op(ops->vidioc_dqbuf, ops->vidioc_ext_dqbuf,
>>>> + file, fh, arg);
>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> - return ret ? ret : ops->vidioc_dqbuf(file, fh, p);
>>>> +static int v4l_ext_dqbuf(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> + struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return v4l_do_ext_buf_op(ops->vidioc_dqbuf, ops->vidioc_ext_dqbuf,
>>>> + file, fh, arg);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static int v4l_create_bufs(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> @@ -2513,7 +2760,27 @@ static int v4l_create_bufs(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>>
>>>> v4l_sanitize_format(&create->format);
>>>>
>>>> - ret = ops->vidioc_create_bufs(file, fh, create);
>>>> + if (ops->vidioc_create_bufs) {
>>>> + ret = ops->vidioc_create_bufs(file, fh, create);
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + struct v4l2_ext_create_buffers ecreate = {
>>>> + .count = create->count,
>>>> + .memory = create->memory,
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = v4l2_format_to_ext_pix_format(&create->format,
>>>> + &ecreate.format, true);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = ops->vidioc_ext_create_bufs(file, fh, &ecreate);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + create->index = ecreate.index;
>>>> + create->count = ecreate.count;
>>>> + create->capabilities = ecreate.capabilities;
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> if (create->format.type == V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_CAPTURE ||
>>>> create->format.type == V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_OUTPUT)
>>>> @@ -2522,13 +2789,60 @@ static int v4l_create_bufs(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> return ret;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static int v4l_ext_create_bufs(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> + struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct v4l2_ext_create_buffers *ecreate = arg;
>>>> + struct video_device *vdev = video_devdata(file);
>>>> + struct v4l2_create_buffers create = {
>>>> + .count = ecreate->count,
>>>> + .memory = ecreate->memory,
>>>> + .flags = ecreate->flags,
>>>> + };
>>>> + bool mplane_cap;
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = check_fmt(file, ecreate->format.type);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (ops->vidioc_ext_create_bufs)
>>>> + return ops->vidioc_ext_create_bufs(file, fh, ecreate);
>>>> +
>>>> + mplane_cap = !!(vdev->device_caps &
>>>> + (V4L2_CAP_VIDEO_CAPTURE_MPLANE |
>>>> + V4L2_CAP_VIDEO_OUTPUT_MPLANE |
>>>> + V4L2_CAP_VIDEO_M2M_MPLANE));
>>>> + ret = v4l2_ext_pix_format_to_format(&ecreate->format,
>>>> + &create.format, mplane_cap, true);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = v4l_create_bufs(ops, file, fh, &create);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ecreate->index = create.index;
>>>> + ecreate->count = create.count;
>>>> + ecreate->capabilities = create.capabilities;
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static int v4l_prepare_buf(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> - struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> + struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> {
>>>> - struct v4l2_buffer *b = arg;
>>>> - int ret = check_fmt(file, b->type);
>>>> + return v4l_do_buf_op(ops->vidioc_prepare_buf,
>>>> + ops->vidioc_ext_prepare_buf,
>>>> + file, fh, arg);
>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> - return ret ? ret : ops->vidioc_prepare_buf(file, fh, b);
>>>> +static int v4l_ext_prepare_buf(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> + struct file *file, void *fh, void *arg)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return v4l_do_ext_buf_op(ops->vidioc_prepare_buf,
>>>> + ops->vidioc_ext_prepare_buf,
>>>> + file, fh, arg);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static int v4l_g_parm(const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops *ops,
>>>> @@ -3202,12 +3516,15 @@ static const struct v4l2_ioctl_info v4l2_ioctls[] = {
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_S_EXT_PIX_FMT, v4l_s_ext_pix_fmt, v4l_print_ext_pix_format, INFO_FL_PRIO),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_REQBUFS, v4l_reqbufs, v4l_print_requestbuffers, INFO_FL_PRIO | INFO_FL_QUEUE),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_QUERYBUF, v4l_querybuf, v4l_print_buffer, INFO_FL_QUEUE | INFO_FL_CLEAR(v4l2_buffer, length)),
>>>> + IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_EXT_QUERYBUF, v4l_ext_querybuf, v4l_print_ext_buffer, INFO_FL_QUEUE | INFO_FL_CLEAR(v4l2_ext_buffer, planes)),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_G_FBUF, v4l_stub_g_fbuf, v4l_print_framebuffer, 0),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_S_FBUF, v4l_stub_s_fbuf, v4l_print_framebuffer, INFO_FL_PRIO),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_OVERLAY, v4l_overlay, v4l_print_u32, INFO_FL_PRIO),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_QBUF, v4l_qbuf, v4l_print_buffer, INFO_FL_QUEUE),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_EXPBUF, v4l_stub_expbuf, v4l_print_exportbuffer, INFO_FL_QUEUE | INFO_FL_CLEAR(v4l2_exportbuffer, flags)),
>>>> + IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_EXT_QBUF, v4l_ext_qbuf, v4l_print_ext_buffer, INFO_FL_QUEUE),
>>>
>>> Looking at the other entries, shouldn't this one be 1 line higher?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> That said, I wonder if it wouldn't look cleaner if we just put all the
>>> EXT ioctls together at the bottom.
>>
>> I can move them and we can see if it is better or not.
>>
>>>
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_DQBUF, v4l_dqbuf, v4l_print_buffer, INFO_FL_QUEUE),
>>>> + IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_EXT_DQBUF, v4l_ext_dqbuf, v4l_print_ext_buffer, INFO_FL_QUEUE),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_STREAMON, v4l_streamon, v4l_print_buftype, INFO_FL_PRIO | INFO_FL_QUEUE),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_STREAMOFF, v4l_streamoff, v4l_print_buftype, INFO_FL_PRIO | INFO_FL_QUEUE),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_G_PARM, v4l_g_parm, v4l_print_streamparm, INFO_FL_CLEAR(v4l2_streamparm, type)),
>>>> @@ -3272,7 +3589,9 @@ static const struct v4l2_ioctl_info v4l2_ioctls[] = {
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_SUBSCRIBE_EVENT, v4l_subscribe_event, v4l_print_event_subscription, 0),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_UNSUBSCRIBE_EVENT, v4l_unsubscribe_event, v4l_print_event_subscription, 0),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS, v4l_create_bufs, v4l_print_create_buffers, INFO_FL_PRIO | INFO_FL_QUEUE),
>>>> + IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_EXT_CREATE_BUFS, v4l_ext_create_bufs, v4l_print_ext_create_buffers, INFO_FL_PRIO | INFO_FL_QUEUE),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_PREPARE_BUF, v4l_prepare_buf, v4l_print_buffer, INFO_FL_QUEUE),
>>>> + IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_EXT_PREPARE_BUF, v4l_ext_prepare_buf, v4l_print_ext_buffer, INFO_FL_QUEUE),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_ENUM_DV_TIMINGS, v4l_stub_enum_dv_timings, v4l_print_enum_dv_timings, INFO_FL_CLEAR(v4l2_enum_dv_timings, pad)),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_QUERY_DV_TIMINGS, v4l_stub_query_dv_timings, v4l_print_dv_timings, INFO_FL_ALWAYS_COPY),
>>>> IOCTL_INFO(VIDIOC_DV_TIMINGS_CAP, v4l_stub_dv_timings_cap, v4l_print_dv_timings_cap, INFO_FL_CLEAR(v4l2_dv_timings_cap, pad)),
>>>> diff --git a/include/media/v4l2-ioctl.h b/include/media/v4l2-ioctl.h
>>>> index 8bbcb74d8ee31..75996657ad1ba 100644
>>>> --- a/include/media/v4l2-ioctl.h
>>>> +++ b/include/media/v4l2-ioctl.h
>>>> @@ -169,16 +169,26 @@ struct v4l2_fh;
>>>> * :ref:`VIDIOC_REQBUFS <vidioc_reqbufs>` ioctl
>>>> * @vidioc_querybuf: pointer to the function that implements
>>>> * :ref:`VIDIOC_QUERYBUF <vidioc_querybuf>` ioctl
>>>> + * @vidioc_ext_querybuf: pointer to the function that implements
>>>> + * :ref:`VIDIOC_EXT_QUERYBUF <vidioc_ext_querybuf>` ioctl
>>>> * @vidioc_qbuf: pointer to the function that implements
>>>> * :ref:`VIDIOC_QBUF <vidioc_qbuf>` ioctl
>>>> + * @vidioc_ext_qbuf: pointer to the function that implements
>>>> + * :ref:`VIDIOC_EXT_QBUF <vidioc_ext_qbuf>` ioctl
>>>> * @vidioc_expbuf: pointer to the function that implements
>>>> * :ref:`VIDIOC_EXPBUF <vidioc_expbuf>` ioctl
>>>> * @vidioc_dqbuf: pointer to the function that implements
>>>> * :ref:`VIDIOC_DQBUF <vidioc_qbuf>` ioctl
>>>> + * @vidioc_ext_dqbuf: pointer to the function that implements
>>>> + * :ref:`VIDIOC_EXT_DQBUF <vidioc_ext_qbuf>` ioctl
>>>> * @vidioc_create_bufs: pointer to the function that implements
>>>> * :ref:`VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS <vidioc_create_bufs>` ioctl
>>>> + * @vidioc_ext_create_bufs: pointer to the function that implements
>>>> + * :ref:`VIDIOC_EXT_CREATE_BUFS <vidioc_ext_create_bufs>` ioctl
>>>> * @vidioc_prepare_buf: pointer to the function that implements
>>>> * :ref:`VIDIOC_PREPARE_BUF <vidioc_prepare_buf>` ioctl
>>>> + * @vidioc_ext_prepare_buf: pointer to the function that implements
>>>> + * :ref:`VIDIOC_EXT_PREPARE_BUF <vidioc_ext_prepare_buf>` ioctl
>>>> * @vidioc_overlay: pointer to the function that implements
>>>> * :ref:`VIDIOC_OVERLAY <vidioc_overlay>` ioctl
>>>> * @vidioc_g_fbuf: pointer to the function that implements
>>>> @@ -439,17 +449,27 @@ struct v4l2_ioctl_ops {
>>>> struct v4l2_requestbuffers *b);
>>>> int (*vidioc_querybuf)(struct file *file, void *fh,
>>>> struct v4l2_buffer *b);
>>>> + int (*vidioc_ext_querybuf)(struct file *file, void *fh,
>>>> + struct v4l2_ext_buffer *b);
>>>> int (*vidioc_qbuf)(struct file *file, void *fh,
>>>> struct v4l2_buffer *b);
>>>> + int (*vidioc_ext_qbuf)(struct file *file, void *fh,
>>>> + struct v4l2_ext_buffer *b);
>>>> int (*vidioc_expbuf)(struct file *file, void *fh,
>>>> struct v4l2_exportbuffer *e);
>>>> int (*vidioc_dqbuf)(struct file *file, void *fh,
>>>> struct v4l2_buffer *b);
>>>> + int (*vidioc_ext_dqbuf)(struct file *file, void *fh,
>>>> + struct v4l2_ext_buffer *b);
>>>>
>>>> int (*vidioc_create_bufs)(struct file *file, void *fh,
>>>> struct v4l2_create_buffers *b);
>>>> + int (*vidioc_ext_create_bufs)(struct file *file, void *fh,
>>>> + struct v4l2_ext_create_buffers *b);
>>>> int (*vidioc_prepare_buf)(struct file *file, void *fh,
>>>> struct v4l2_buffer *b);
>>>> + int (*vidioc_ext_prepare_buf)(struct file *file, void *fh,
>>>> + struct v4l2_ext_buffer *b);
>>>>
>>>> int (*vidioc_overlay)(struct file *file, void *fh, unsigned int i);
>>>> int (*vidioc_g_fbuf)(struct file *file, void *fh,
>>>> @@ -758,6 +778,12 @@ int v4l2_ext_pix_format_to_format(const struct v4l2_ext_pix_format *e,
>>>> struct v4l2_format *f,
>>>> bool mplane_cap, bool strict);
>>>>
>>>> +int v4l2_ext_buffer_to_buffer(const struct v4l2_ext_buffer *e,
>>>> + struct v4l2_buffer *b,
>>>> + bool mplane_cap);
>>>> +int v4l2_buffer_to_ext_buffer(const struct v4l2_buffer *b,
>>>> + struct v4l2_ext_buffer *e);
>>>> +
>>>> /*
>>>> * The user space interpretation of the 'v4l2_event' differs
>>>> * based on the 'time_t' definition on 32-bit architectures, so
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h b/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h
>>>> index 7123c6a4d9569..334cafdd2be97 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h
>>>> @@ -996,6 +996,41 @@ struct v4l2_plane {
>>>> __u32 reserved[11];
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * struct v4l2_ext_plane - extended plane buffer info
>>>> + * @buffer_length: size of the entire buffer in bytes, should fit
>>>> + * @offset + @plane_length
>>>
>>> Do we actually need this buffer_length at all? We have 3 memory types:
>>>
>>> 1) MMAP - here vb2 already knows the buffer size, because it created it.
>>>
>>> 2) DMABUF - the DMA-buf kAPI provides the information about buffer size.
>>>
>>> 3) USERPTR - this might actually benefit from buffer_length, because there
>>> are additional alignmnent requirements for the user memory, e.g. the
>>> offset and size must be cacheline aligned.
>>>
>>> Arguably, 1) and 2) are the main usage scenarios, while the user space that
>>> uses them would have to suffer from added complexity, because of the
>>> legacy/niche case 3).
>>>
>>> Could we make this field valid only for USERPTR?
>>
>> I think so, make sense, I'll implement this for next version.
>>
>>>
>>>> + * @plane_length: size of the plane in bytes.
>>>> + * @mem_offset: If V4L2_MEMORY_MMAP is used, then it can be a "cookie"
>>>> + * that should be passed to mmap() called on the video node.
>>>> + * @userptr: when memory is V4L2_MEMORY_USERPTR, a userspace pointer pointing
>>>> + * to this plane.
>>>> + * @dmabuf_fd: when memory is V4L2_MEMORY_DMABUF, a userspace file descriptor
>>>> + * associated with this plane.
>>>> + * @offset: offset in the memory buffer where the plane starts.
>>>> + * @memory: enum v4l2_memory; the method, in which the actual video
>>>> + * data is passed
>>>> + * @reserved: extra space reserved for future fields, must be set to 0.
>>>> + *
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Buffers consist of one or more planes, e.g. an YCbCr buffer with two planes
>>>> + * can have one plane for Y, and another for interleaved CbCr components.
>>>> + * Each plane can reside in a separate memory buffer, or even in
>>>> + * a completely separate memory node (e.g. in embedded devices).
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct v4l2_ext_plane {
>>>> + __u32 buffer_length;
>>>> + __u32 plane_length;
>>>> + union {
>>>> + __u32 mem_offset;
>>>> + __u64 userptr;
>>>> + __s32 dmabuf_fd;
>>>> + } m;
>>>> + __u32 offset;
>>>> + __u32 memory;
>>>> + __u32 reserved[4];
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> Don't we also need bytesused? Or would plane_length essentially mean the
>>> amount of space or payload, depending on the usage context?
>>
>> In my understanding, plane_length is the max amount of data the plane can
>> occupy, othersize it can overflow the buffer or mess with another plane
>> that is in the same buffer on a different offset.
>>
>> I'm probably wrong, but I don't really see why the payload size is usefull,
>> unless if we set a plane_legth that is much bigger then the data it can carry,
>> that can impact performance.
>> Payload can also be calculated from the format.
>
> It is required for non-2D-image formats, such as compressed bitstream.
> In that case, the size of the image varies between frames and is
> usually less than the size of the buffer.
right, ok.
>
>>
>> I can add it back if it is usefull. Please let me know your thoughts.
>>
>
> As I mentioned above, it looks like plane_length is used almost
> exactly the same way bytesused was in the original code, so maybe it
> could just stay this way?
Ack.
>
>>>
>>> Similarly, the original data_offset was useful as a return field, which
>>> some drivers use to indicate that the beginning of the plane is occupied by
>>> some header or otherwise irrelevant data, which must be skipped. Would the
>>> offset field be used for this purpose now?
>>
>> I didn't add an equivalent of the data_offset, since it seemed to be
>> unused (please see my comments about this above).
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> /**
>>>> * struct v4l2_buffer - video buffer info
>>>> * @index: id number of the buffer
>>>> @@ -1057,6 +1092,33 @@ struct v4l2_buffer {
>>>> };
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * struct v4l2_ext_buffer - extended video buffer info
>>>> + * @index: id number of the buffer
>>>> + * @type: V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_CAPTURE or V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_OUTPUT
>>>> + * @flags: buffer informational flags
>>>
>>> nit: The order of comments doesn't match the order of fields in the struct.
>>
>> Ack.
>>
>>>
>>>> + * @field: enum v4l2_field; field order of the image in the buffer
>>>> + * @timestamp: frame timestamp
>>>> + * @sequence: sequence count of this frame
>>>> + * @planes: per-plane buffer information
>>>> + * @request_fd: fd of the request that this buffer should use
>>>> + * @reserved: extra space reserved for future fields, must be set to 0
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Contains data exchanged by application and driver using one of the Streaming
>>>> + * I/O methods.
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct v4l2_ext_buffer {
>>>> + __u32 index;
>>>> + __u32 type;
>>>> + __u32 field;
>>>> + __u32 sequence;
>>>> + __u64 flags;
>>>> + __u64 timestamp;
>>>
>>> What's the unit? How does this play with the other UAPI that the user space
>>> may use, e.g. clock_gettime() which returns struct timespec?
>>
>> The unity is nsec:
>>
>> e->timestamp = b->timestamp.tv_sec * NSEC_PER_SEC +
>> b->timestamp.tv_usec * NSEC_PER_USEC;
>>
>> I can clarify in the docs, is this ok?
>>
>
> Yes, it definitely needs to be documented. That said, what's the
> rationale for switching from the timeval representation to the flat
> nsec-based one?
According to https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-media/patch/20190319145243.25047-4-boris.brezillon@collabora.com/
This avoids y2038 issue.
Regards,
Helen
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists