From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net ([194.109.24.31]:56644 "EHLO lb3-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752585AbcF1L60 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2016 07:58:26 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] solo6x10: Set FRAME_BUF_SIZE to 200KB To: Andrey Utkin References: <1462378881-16625-1-git-send-email-ismael@iodev.co.uk> <33cd3138-6adc-d9c4-a9b0-bfb5f0445088@xs4all.nl> <20160628114809.GF31802@acer> Cc: Ismael Luceno , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Andrey Utkin From: Hans Verkuil Message-ID: <57726657.3040802@xs4all.nl> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:58:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160628114809.GF31802@acer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/28/16 13:48, Andrey Utkin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:12:42AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: >> Andrey, >> >> Since you are the original author, can you give me your Signed-off-by line? > > No, as increasing buffer size by few kilobytes doesn't change anything. I've > increased it from 200 to 204, then found new occurances of the issue, > then increased it again and again by few kilobytes. Then I got that this > is not a (nice) solution, and have never came back to this. Maybe > doubling current buffer size would make users forget about this, but I'm > not sure maintainers would be glad with such patch. I don't care. Right now it doesn't work. The cause is that the buffers are too small to handle the worst-case situation. So if doubling the size makes it work, then that's perfectly OK. Memory is cheap these days. If it will fail, then that's much worse than consuming a few meg more. Ideally you can calculate what the worst-case size is, but I expect that to be quite difficult if not impossible. Regards, Hans