From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Werner Van Belle Subject: Third time: Unlink PCM resource ? Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:30:19 +0200 Message-ID: <4A1AB98B.9010604@yellowcouch.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8298115638994947839==" Return-path: Received: from sigtrans.org (sigtrans.org [213.239.213.249]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC1E2435E for ; Mon, 25 May 2009 17:28:20 +0200 (CEST) List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --===============8298115638994947839== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigE2F848627FA3C12DA5936338" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigE2F848627FA3C12DA5936338 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, This is the third time I tried to get information on the same topic but there has been no response. Since it is crucial for me to get this to work, I really would appreciate your input. If necssary I can provide further documentation. The problem is as follows: if a process which opened a DSP device forks of a new process, then this child will have the same handle towards the DSP. What I now want to do is to release the handle in the child without closing the device for the parent as well. So essentially the sequence below illustrates the problem if one is unable to 'unlink' a dsp device. a- parent process creates and open dsp device b- parent process forks of a child 1. Child 1 has access to the same dsp device c- parent process closes the DSP device d- client process can no longer write to the DSP device (these are already odd semantics, but okay, can live with it) e- parent process forks of a second child. Child 2 has no dsp device f- Child 2 tries to open the DSP device. This fails because the device, although closed, is not released yet by Child 1. Is this normal behavior ? Is there some rigid documentation on the closing and sharing semantics of pcm devices ? Is there a way to unlink a device without closing it ? If this is the wrong mailinglist, then who should I contact regarding these erratic semantics ? Wkr, --=20 Dr. Werner Van Belle http://werner.yellowcouch.org/ --------------enigE2F848627FA3C12DA5936338 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoauYwACgkQYJM5sO5rAR36EQCg19CEGQ24Jz8J1Epaknapr557 K50An3W8oDsutd1fuMRKS4BX1jB2gbmk =oOK2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigE2F848627FA3C12DA5936338-- --===============8298115638994947839== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel --===============8298115638994947839==--