At Fri, 04 Oct 2002 20:04:00 +0200, Abramo Bagnara wrote: > > Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > At Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:14:09 +0200, > > Anders Torger wrote: > > > > > > Uhhh... I guess ignoring me works just as well :-) > > > > not ignored but pending :) > > > > Abramo, do you still have objection to change the default behavior? > > > > i don't mind that even the new behavior is optional e.g. via > > snd_pcm_sw_params. but i believe the current behavior is not expected > > as a normal one, so it's enough reason to change it. > > > > also, if someone (Tim?) already has a patch, please send it here. > > it seems my last patch doesn't work properly... > > For what it worths my objections are still there. > > I'm strongly convinced that to have poll waiting for something that > cannot happens is a big mistake (also as an optional behaviour).
it CAN happen if you have multi-threads. the problem is that we have no option to block the poll. > That apart I'm sure that to make a change in actual behaviour between > rcX and 1.0 is a professional suicide. However it's _your_ professional > suicide so... ;-))) yes, i know it well ;) i don't like to change this inevitably, too. and as mentioned above, i don't mind to add an option as sw_params, etc. for the new behavior. but the current behavior is incorrect from the interpretation of POSIX. so this must be a bug. if we have to change it, then i would choose the new one, because it's more intuitive without exception. Takashi ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
