> > If you're proposing to "fix" bttv to add this restriction, or maybe for > > other drivers to add it, then you're going to break a lot of existing > > applications, or make it so that they can only run on bttv. If you want > > I am not proposing to fix any drivers. What I am proposing is to fix > APPLICATIONS. The only way I can think of to get the applications fixed is to break them by making bttv more strict. bttv never required applications to do that (for historical reasons which predate the v4l API). xawtv doesn't calls these two ioctls either before VIDIOCGMBUF (for historical reasons too). Lots of other bttv specific assumtions have been fixed, but I've missed because I wasn't aware if the problem. As probably plenty of applications copied the code from xawtv (instead of writing stuff from scratch by reading the API specs) I'd expect nearly no application gets this really right. > 2) Propose a cleaner ioctl to Alan, and see if he will accept it. VIDIOCSMBUF(struct video_mbuf)? Just an idea ... Gerd -- Get back there in front of the computer NOW. Christmas can wait. -- Linus "the Grinch" Torvalds, 24 Dec 2000 on linux-kernel
