On 16 December 2015 at 00:36, Tanu Kaskinen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 21:49 +0530, [email protected] wrote: >> From: Arun Raghavan <[email protected]> >> >> There doesn't appear to be a good reason to restrict the memchunk length >> to the resample max block size -- we're going to have the memory around >> anyway. > > I think the reason is to make sure that we don't feed the resampler > bigger chunks than what it can handle. The resampler has to allocate > other memblocks during its operation, and those memblocks may be bigger > than the input block, so if the input block is too large, the > requirements for the other blocks will grow beyond the mempool max > block size. > > However, pa_sink_input_peek() seems to protect against this anyway when > doing resampling (it processes the input in smaller pieces if it's > larger than the resampler max block size), so maybe this change is safe > anyway. > >> Moreover, callers of pa_sink_input_get_silence() don't seem to >> actually care about the chunk itself, just the memblock for creating >> their own pa_memblockq. > > I don't understand this comment. pa_memblockq cares about the chunk > itself, not just the memblock.
I misread that code. It does work with the chunk, not the memblock of course. -- Arun _______________________________________________ pulseaudio-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
