Re: [PATCH] videobuf-dma-contig: zero copy USERPTR support V2

[Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is V2 of the V4L2 videobuf-dma-contig USERPTR zero copy patch.

I guess the V4L2 specific bits are pretty simple.

As for the minor mm modifications below,

> --- 0001/mm/memory.c
> +++ work/mm/memory.c    2009-04-28 14:56:43.000000000 +0900
> @@ -3009,7 +3009,6 @@ int in_gate_area_no_task(unsigned long a
>
>  #endif /* __HAVE_ARCH_GATE_AREA */
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_IOREMAP_PROT
>  int follow_phys(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>                unsigned long address, unsigned int flags,
>                unsigned long *prot, resource_size_t *phys)

Is it ok with the memory management guys to always build follow_phys()?

> @@ -3063,7 +3062,9 @@ unlock:
>  out:
>        return ret;
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(follow_phys);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_IOREMAP_PROT
>  int generic_access_phys(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
>                        void *buf, int len, int write)
>  {

How about exporting follow_phys()? This because the user
videobuf-dma-contig.c can be built as a module.

Should I use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() instead of EXPORT_SYMBOL()?

Any comments?

Thanks,

/ magnus

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>