From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Abramo Bagnara Subject: Re: Why do I get broken pipe on write to a pcm in statePREPARED? Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:07:13 +0200 Sender: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <3DA178F1.769C6FFA@libero.it> References: <200209181957.g8IJvS008300@d1o87.telia.com> <200210040814.g948E9015465@d1o87.telia.com> <3D9DD810.7C3960C4@libero.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Errors-To: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: Takashi Iwai Cc: Anders Torger , Jaroslav Kysela , Tim Goetze , alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Takashi Iwai wrote: > > it CAN happen if you have multi-threads. > the problem is that we have no option to block the poll. If you have multi-thread you have other alternative to do that. OTOH application can't detect *why* poll is blocking with the change you advocate. > > 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. As pointed by Clemens the current is the proper POSIX behaviour. -- Abramo Bagnara mailto:abramo.bagnara@libero.it Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023 Via Emilia Interna, 140 48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf