[PATCH] v4l2: Change call of function in videobuf2-core.c

[PATCH] v4l2: Change call of function in videobuf2-core.c

[Nicholas Krause]

This patch changes the call of vb2_buffer_core to use VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ACTIVE
inside the for instead of not setting in correctly to VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ERROR.

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
index 7c4489c..08e478b 100644
--- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
+++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
@@ -2115,7 +2115,7 @@ static void __vb2_queue_cancel(struct vb2_queue *q)
 	if (WARN_ON(atomic_read(&q->owned_by_drv_count))) {
 		for (i = 0; i < q->num_buffers; ++i)
 			if (q->bufs[i]->state == VB2_BUF_STATE_ACTIVE)
-				vb2_buffer_done(q->bufs[i], VB2_BUF_STATE_ERROR);
+				vb2_buffer_done(q->bufs[i], VB2_BUF_STATE_ACTIVE);
 		/* Must be zero now */
 		WARN_ON(atomic_read(&q->owned_by_drv_count));
 	}
-- 
1.9.1

Re: [PATCH] v4l2: Change call of function in videobuf2-core.c

[Dave Airlie]

On 4 August 2014 13:25, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
> This patch changes the call of vb2_buffer_core to use VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ACTIVE
> inside the for instead of not setting in correctly to VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ERROR.
>

Please go back and read every mail sent to you in the last few weeks.
then read them again, go nuts read them again.

Still wondering where I'm going with this? read them again.

then understand that I mean this in the nicest way possible. "please fuck off."

you are wasting developers time.

Dave.

Re: [PATCH] v4l2: Change call of function in videobuf2-core.c

[Hans Verkuil]

On 08/04/2014 05:25 AM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> This patch changes the call of vb2_buffer_core to use VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ACTIVE
> inside the for instead of not setting in correctly to VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ERROR.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>

Dunno what's going on here after reading Dave Airlie's reply, but:

Nacked-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@cisco.com>

It's clearly wrong and if you get here at all you have a driver bug anyway. That
WARN_ON is there for a reason. Your driver isn't returning buffers correctly in
stop_streaming or in start_streaming if start_streaming fails with an error.

Regards,

	Hans

> ---
>  drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
> index 7c4489c..08e478b 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
> @@ -2115,7 +2115,7 @@ static void __vb2_queue_cancel(struct vb2_queue *q)
>  	if (WARN_ON(atomic_read(&q->owned_by_drv_count))) {
>  		for (i = 0; i < q->num_buffers; ++i)
>  			if (q->bufs[i]->state == VB2_BUF_STATE_ACTIVE)
> -				vb2_buffer_done(q->bufs[i], VB2_BUF_STATE_ERROR);
> +				vb2_buffer_done(q->bufs[i], VB2_BUF_STATE_ACTIVE);
>  		/* Must be zero now */
>  		WARN_ON(atomic_read(&q->owned_by_drv_count));
>  	}
> 

Re: [PATCH] v4l2: Change call of function in videobuf2-core.c

[Nick Krause]

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 08/04/2014 05:25 AM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>> This patch changes the call of vb2_buffer_core to use VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ACTIVE
>> inside the for instead of not setting in correctly to VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ERROR.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
>
> Dunno what's going on here after reading Dave Airlie's reply, but:
>
> Nacked-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@cisco.com>
>
> It's clearly wrong and if you get here at all you have a driver bug anyway. That
> WARN_ON is there for a reason. Your driver isn't returning buffers correctly in
> stop_streaming or in start_streaming if start_streaming fails with an error.
>
> Regards,
>
>         Hans
>
>> ---
>>  drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
>> index 7c4489c..08e478b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c
>> @@ -2115,7 +2115,7 @@ static void __vb2_queue_cancel(struct vb2_queue *q)
>>       if (WARN_ON(atomic_read(&q->owned_by_drv_count))) {
>>               for (i = 0; i < q->num_buffers; ++i)
>>                       if (q->bufs[i]->state == VB2_BUF_STATE_ACTIVE)
>> -                             vb2_buffer_done(q->bufs[i], VB2_BUF_STATE_ERROR);
>> +                             vb2_buffer_done(q->bufs[i], VB2_BUF_STATE_ACTIVE);
>>               /* Must be zero now */
>>               WARN_ON(atomic_read(&q->owned_by_drv_count));
>>       }
>>
>

Yes ,
That was an idiot mistake. So sorry about that would someone mind as a
big help a list of
common debugging macros or a link to somewhere I can read them. I want
to apologize
sincerely for my bad mistakes. I do want to help out and by helping me
sand out my
mistakes and learn from them I can help much better. I do want to help
and if people
are willing to get me grow like this I will continue to try and help.
Regards Nick

Re: [PATCH] v4l2: Change call of function in videobuf2-core.c

[Dave Airlie]

On 4 August 2014 15:03, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 08/04/2014 05:25 AM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>> This patch changes the call of vb2_buffer_core to use VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ACTIVE
>> inside the for instead of not setting in correctly to VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ERROR.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
>
> Dunno what's going on here after reading Dave Airlie's reply, but:
>

Nick has decided he wants to be a kernel developer, a laudable goal.

He however has decided not to take any advice given to me by a number of other
kernel developers on how to work on the kernel. So instead he sends random
broken patches to random subsystems in the hope that one will slip past a sleepy
maintainer and end up in the kernel.

He isn't willing to spend his own time learning anything, he is
expecting that kernel
developers want to spoon feed someone who sends them broken patches.

We've asked him to stop, he keeps doing it, then when caught out apologizes
with something along the lines, of I'm trying to learn, "idiot
mistake", despite having
been told to take a step back and try and learn how the kernel works.

Now we have to waste more maintainer time making sure nobody accidentally
merges anything he sends.

Dave.

Re: [PATCH] v4l2: Change call of function in videobuf2-core.c

[Nick Krause]

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 August 2014 15:03, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> On 08/04/2014 05:25 AM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>>> This patch changes the call of vb2_buffer_core to use VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ACTIVE
>>> inside the for instead of not setting in correctly to VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ERROR.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
>>
>> Dunno what's going on here after reading Dave Airlie's reply, but:
>>
>
> Nick has decided he wants to be a kernel developer, a laudable goal.
>
> He however has decided not to take any advice given to me by a number of other
> kernel developers on how to work on the kernel. So instead he sends random
> broken patches to random subsystems in the hope that one will slip past a sleepy
> maintainer and end up in the kernel.
>
> He isn't willing to spend his own time learning anything, he is
> expecting that kernel
> developers want to spoon feed someone who sends them broken patches.
>
> We've asked him to stop, he keeps doing it, then when caught out apologizes
> with something along the lines, of I'm trying to learn, "idiot
> mistake", despite having
> been told to take a step back and try and learn how the kernel works.
>
> Now we have to waste more maintainer time making sure nobody accidentally
> merges anything he sends.
>
> Dave.
All of my merges are not in the main kernel and have been revoked.
Cheers Nick

Re: [PATCH] v4l2: Change call of function in videobuf2-core.c

[Nick Krause]

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Nick Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4 August 2014 15:03, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2014 05:25 AM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>>>> This patch changes the call of vb2_buffer_core to use VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ACTIVE
>>>> inside the for instead of not setting in correctly to VB2_BUFFER_STATE_ERROR.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Dunno what's going on here after reading Dave Airlie's reply, but:
>>>
>>
>> Nick has decided he wants to be a kernel developer, a laudable goal.
>>
>> He however has decided not to take any advice given to me by a number of other
>> kernel developers on how to work on the kernel. So instead he sends random
>> broken patches to random subsystems in the hope that one will slip past a sleepy
>> maintainer and end up in the kernel.
>>
>> He isn't willing to spend his own time learning anything, he is
>> expecting that kernel
>> developers want to spoon feed someone who sends them broken patches.
>>
>> We've asked him to stop, he keeps doing it, then when caught out apologizes
>> with something along the lines, of I'm trying to learn, "idiot
>> mistake", despite having
>> been told to take a step back and try and learn how the kernel works.
>>
>> Now we have to waste more maintainer time making sure nobody accidentally
>> merges anything he sends.
>>
>> Dave.
> All of my merges are not in the main kernel and have been revoked.
> Cheers Nick


Dave,
I understand your issues with my programming. I need to try and
understand the kernel first before programming
for it.
Regards Nick

Re: [PATCH] v4l2: Change call of function in videobuf2-core.c

[Dave Airlie]

>
> Dave,
> I understand your issues with my programming. I need to try and
> understand the kernel first before programming
> for it.

Why do you insist on sending more patches then, every day you try and
send another one or two, despite been
told multiple times to a) understand what you are writing, b) build
test, c) actual test on hw or in a VM if applicable.

Frankly I think you are taking the piss, probably writing some stupid
Uni thesis on how to subvert the kernel development model by trolling
it with broken patches.

Dave.

Re: [PATCH] v4l2: Change call of function in videobuf2-core.c

[Nick Krause]

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dave,
>> I understand your issues with my programming. I need to try and
>> understand the kernel first before programming
>> for it.
>
> Why do you insist on sending more patches then, every day you try and
> send another one or two, despite been
> told multiple times to a) understand what you are writing, b) build
> test, c) actual test on hw or in a VM if applicable.
>
> Frankly I think you are taking the piss, probably writing some stupid
> Uni thesis on how to subvert the kernel development model by trolling
> it with broken patches.
>
> Dave.
Dave,
I for a while just wanted to get a few patches in but now realize that
patches are not as easy to make as they seem.
I will stop sending bad patches and start properly testing my patches
by building them and running them if I can.
Regards,
Nick

Re: [PATCH] v4l2: Change call of function in videobuf2-core.c

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 03:38:20PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> 
> Nick has decided he wants to be a kernel developer, a laudable goal.
> 
> He however has decided not to take any advice given to me by a number of other
> kernel developers on how to work on the kernel. So instead he sends random
> broken patches to random subsystems in the hope that one will slip past a sleepy
> maintainer and end up in the kernel.

So far, he has tried to do this with the ext4, btrfs, scsi, and usb
subsystems.  I'm probably missing a few.  I suspect he's jumping
around to different subsystems hoping to find one where his reputation
hasn't been blackened yet by his refusal to deeply understand kernel
code (or to test to see if it compiles, never mind trying to boot a
kernel with that patch and exercise the modified code) before starting
to try to "help".

Other theories besides the one that Dave has advocated that he's
trying to write a University Thesis on trolling the kernel development
process (either by seeing if an obviously broken patch could be snuck
past the peer review system, or to see if he can try to get someone to
lose their temper much like Linus is supposed to do all the time ---
not realizing that this only happens to people who really should know
better, not to clueless newbies), are that he's a badly written AI
chatbot, or just a clueless high school student with more tenacity
than one usually expects at that age.  Or maybe he's trying to win a
bet, or is trying to get extra credit or to complete some course
assignment by getting a patch into the kernel.  Or maybe this is just
the universe trying to demonstrate exactly how true the
Dunning-Krueger effect really is....

> He isn't willing to spend his own time learning anything, he is
> expecting that kernel
> developers want to spoon feed someone who sends them broken patches.
> 
> We've asked him to stop, he keeps doing it, then when caught out apologizes
> with something along the lines, of I'm trying to learn, "idiot
> mistake", despite having
> been told to take a step back and try and learn how the kernel works.
> 
> Now we have to waste more maintainer time making sure nobody accidentally
> merges anything he sends.

Indeed; if you see any patches from Nick on other mailing lists which
you follow, it's a good idea to check and see if said patch is garbage
--- to date, his track record has been remarkably consistent.

But please do it in the nicest way possible, just in case he's a
reddit troll or some "journalist" trying to get headline bait by
getting a kernel developer to flame him to a crisp.

							- Ted