Paul Davis wrote: > > >Perhaps only because error will be returned on next call and taken for > >granted that a partial transfer definitely imply a next call, they have > >considered the early return of error a little benefit. > > not that we have that problem, but this design really screwed up > multithreaded programs too, because of assumptions about the > "globalness" of errno. the hack used in linuxthreads is about as > disgusting as they get.
This is an unsolvable problem when we call write/read and other syscall. Of course it's solvable with our ioctls, but I'm not sure it really worths to strictly avoid use of errno. (I'm speaking of alsa-lib internals of course, I definitely don't want to have errno as a part of ALSA lib API). > > despite this, i prefer your solution (return 0, < 0; store frames > committed in passed in pointer, or don't if NULL). It's an idea from Jaroslav (and I don't dislike it *if* we do the same for snd_pcm_write/read). -- Abramo Bagnara mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023 Via Emilia Interna, 140 48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy ALSA project http://www.alsa-project.org It sounds good! _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
