Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 13:35:44 -0500 (EST) From: Sujal Patel <smpatel@wam.umd.edu> To: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> Cc: Paul LaFollette <lafollet@andante.cis.temple.edu>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Any interest in Quickcam Driver Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960131133231.189Q-100000@xi.dorm.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <199601311814.KAA06818@precipice.shockwave.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Paul Traina wrote: > Yeah, I think you're right. I was just trying to for that extra burn, but > the ioctl() syscall overhead (to start the next scan) is as bad as the read. Subsequent scans are starting by a lseek() back to zero in the Linux implementation. I don't think that the overhead for that is really going to be significant, considering it takes around 100,000 I/O reads to get a single frame (and the fact that the kernel busy waits for the QuickCam to actually send data sometimes). Sujal
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960131133231.189Q-100000>