From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: Why do I get broken pipe on write to a pcm in statePREPARED? Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:46:05 +0200 Sender: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <3D84C9EB.DF7C7D6C@libero.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3D84C9EB.DF7C7D6C@libero.it> Errors-To: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: Abramo Bagnara Cc: Jaroslav Kysela , Anders Torger , "alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org At Sun, 15 Sep 2002 19:56:59 +0200, Abramo Bagnara wrote: > > Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > > > I think that the current behaviour of write() is ok, the behaviour of > > poll() might be "fixed". I see advantages for both. I would prefer to have > > this configurable to satisfy multi-threaded applications. We can put a new > > variable to sw_params. > > Implementing that specific behaviour for poll I've paid most attention > to efficiency issues. > > Consider that if you choose a differente behaviour for poll you're > forced to check for xruns (i.e. enter kernel space) just before *every* > poll! well, the origianl question was the behavior of poll at the prepare (and pause) state, so the theme has nothing to do with xruns (it cannot happen :) the behavior of poll at other states should be as well as before. > Sincerely I think this is a stupid approach and I doubt that making it > conditional is a smarter idea. agreed here. ciao, Takashi ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf