Re: [PATCH v4 03/24] media: videobuf2-v4l2: Warn on holding buffers without support

From: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>
To: Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas@ndufresne.ca>,
	Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
Cc: Sebastian Fricke <sebastian.fricke@collabora.com>,
	linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/24] media: videobuf2-v4l2: Warn on holding buffers without support
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 09:57:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0c65521c-513d-1620-fc17-5011e1269d68@xs4all.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d8de72b8c9c6252e2ea66d790e4a5c938050fb0a.camel@ndufresne.ca>

On 28/04/2022 15:09, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> Le jeudi 28 avril 2022 à 08:12 +0200, Hans Verkuil a écrit :
>> On 27/04/2022 17:08, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 27 avril 2022 à 13:31 +0900, Tomasz Figa a écrit :
>>>> Hi Nicolas, Sebastian,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 9:58 PM Nicolas Dufresne
>>>> <nicolas.dufresne@collabora.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Sebastian Fricke <sebastian.fricke@collabora.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Using V4L2_BUF_FLAG_M2M_HOLD_CAPTURE_BUF flag without specifying the
>>>>> subsystem flag VB2_V4L2_FL_SUPPORTS_M2M_HOLD_CAPTURE_BUF, results in
>>>>> silently ignoring it.
>>>>> Warn the user via a debug print when the flag is requested but ignored
>>>>> by the videobuf2 framework.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Fricke <sebastian.fricke@collabora.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas.dufresne@collabora.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-v4l2.c | 7 ++++++-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the patch. Please see my comments inline.
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-v4l2.c b/drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-v4l2.c
>>>>> index 6edf4508c636..812c8d1962e0 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-v4l2.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-v4l2.c
>>>>> @@ -329,8 +329,13 @@ static int vb2_fill_vb2_v4l2_buffer(struct vb2_buffer *vb, struct v4l2_buffer *b
>>>>>                  */
>>>>>                 vbuf->flags &= ~V4L2_BUF_FLAG_TIMECODE;
>>>>>                 vbuf->field = b->field;
>>>>> -               if (!(q->subsystem_flags & VB2_V4L2_FL_SUPPORTS_M2M_HOLD_CAPTURE_BUF))
>>>>> +               if (!(q->subsystem_flags & VB2_V4L2_FL_SUPPORTS_M2M_HOLD_CAPTURE_BUF)) {
>>>>> +                       if (vbuf->flags & V4L2_BUF_FLAG_M2M_HOLD_CAPTURE_BUF)
>>>>> +                               dprintk(q, 1,
>>>>> +                                       "Request holding buffer (%d), unsupported on output queue\n",
>>>>> +                                       b->index);
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if we shouldn't just fail such a QBUF operation. Otherwise
>>>> the application would get unexpected behavior from the kernel.
>>>> Although it might be too late to do it now if there are applications
>>>> that rely on this implicit ignore...
>>>
>>> In the context of this patchset, the statu quo seems to be the logical thing to
>>> do. We can raise this up in a separate thread. The side effect is of course
>>> confusing for developers, but it is hard for me to tell if a hard failure may
>>> break an existing software.
>>
>> I am leaning towards returning an error as well. It makes no sense to try
>> to hold on to a buffer when this is not supported.
>>
>> I also thought that it should be enough to rely on the core to clear the
>> flag upon return if it isn't supported, but looking through the vb2 core code
>> it looks like we're not clearing unknown flags at all, so running this for
>> older kernels that do not support holding at all will not clear the flag
>> either.
>>
>> The handling for flags in vb2 can be improved, I think I'll take a look at
>> that myself.
>>
>> I plan to merge this series soon, but will skip this patch for now.
> 
> Ok, no problem. For me, as long as we do something about it, since it was not
> obvious and time consuming to debug.

After thinking some more (it only took me 7 months :-) ) I believe that an error
should be returned and the documentation for V4L2_BUF_FLAG_M2M_HOLD_CAPTURE_BUF
should be updated to mention that it will return EINVAL if set for a queue that
doesn't support this. vb2_queue_or_prepare_buf() is probably the best place for
this check.

Regards,

	Hans

> 
> regards,
> Nicolas
> 
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> 	Hans
>>
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Nicolas
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Tomasz
>>>
>>
> 