From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755009Ab1LGQ4c (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:56:32 -0500
Received: from ffm.saftware.de ([83.141.3.46]:42732 "EHLO ffm.saftware.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754291Ab1LGQ43 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:56:29 -0500
Message-ID: <4EDF9AB8.3050602@linuxtv.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:56:24 +0100
From: Andreas Oberritter <obi@linuxtv.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@redhat.com>, HoP <jpetrous@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver because
 of worrying about possible misusage?
References: <4EDC9B17.2080701@gmail.com> <CAJbz7-2maWS6mx9WHUWLiW8gC-2PxLD3nc-3y7o9hMtYxN6ZwQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EDD01BA.40208@redhat.com> <4EDD2C82.7040804@linuxtv.org> <20111206112153.GC17194@sirena.org.uk> <4EDE0427.2050307@linuxtv.org> <20111206141929.GE17731@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4EDE2B3B.2080905@linuxtv.org> <20111207134848.GB18837@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4EDF71AE.5070509@linuxtv.org> <20111207161058.GC22355@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
In-Reply-To: <20111207161058.GC22355@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 07.12.2011 17:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> a simple loopback in the style of FUSE which
> bounces the kernel APIs up to userspace for virtual drivers would make
> sense.

That's exactly what vtunerc is.