From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com ([95.142.166.194]:39946 "EHLO perceval.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752432Ab2D3O1D (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:27:03 -0400 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Hans Verkuil Cc: Sakari Ailus , linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] v4l: drop v4l2_buffer.input and V4L2_BUF_FLAG_INPUT Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:27:24 +0200 Message-ID: <2396617.gGNm1rAEoQ@avalon> In-Reply-To: <201204301615.30954.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> References: <20120430130413.GL7913@valkosipuli.localdomain> <20120430140615.GM7913@valkosipuli.localdomain> <201204301615.30954.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday 30 April 2012 16:15:30 Hans Verkuil wrote: > On Monday 30 April 2012 16:06:16 Sakari Ailus wrote: [snip] > > One option is to keep the reserved fields as array even there was just one > > of them or if it no longer was there. If so, reserved should have been > > reserved[1] in the first place. This would make it easier to deal with > > the changing size of the reserved field. > > Definitely. But I think struct v4l2_buffer has been like this for a long > time (Laurent would know when the input field was added). That was 8 to 9 years ago. I'm responsible for that terrible idea, so I'd be happy to see the input field removed ;-) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart