| Message ID | 20230505103140.2285622-2-oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/7] ALSA: pcm: Revert "ALSA: pcm: rewrite snd_pcm_playback_silence()" | expand |
On Fri, 05 May 2023 12:31:35 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > From: Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz> > > The snd_pcm_playback_hw_avail() function uses runtime->status->hw_ptr. > Unfortunately, in case when we call this function from snd_pcm_update_hw_ptr0(), > this variable contains the previous hardware pointer. Use the new_hw_ptr > argument to calculate hw_avail (filled samples by the user space) to > correct the threshold comparison. > > The new_hw_ptr argument may also be set to ULONG_MAX which means the > initialization phase. In this case, use runtime->status->hw_ptr. > > Suggested-by: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> > Signed-off-by: Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz> > Reviewed-by: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> Here misses your Signed-off-by tag. Ditto for the patch 3. It's a legal requirement, and I can't apply patches without it. Could you resubmit the series quickly with your SOB? thanks, Takashi
On Fri, 05 May 2023 17:52:11 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 05:22:57PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Fri, 05 May 2023 12:31:35 +0200, > > Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > >> Suggested-by: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> > >> Signed-off-by: Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz> > >> Reviewed-by: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> > > > > Here misses your Signed-off-by tag. Ditto for the patch 3. > > It's a legal requirement, and I can't apply patches without it. > > > i assumed reviewed-by would be a superset, but apparently it's not. > however, there is no need to add SOB to patches which i only reviewed > or suggested. SOB is needed by a person who submitted, no matter whether any other tags are present. So, it's still mandatory in this case. > i'll adjust the patches to which i made substantial > modifications, though. Great, thanks! Takashi
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 06:22:15PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: >On Fri, 05 May 2023 17:52:11 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: >> however, there is no need to add SOB to patches which i only reviewed >> or suggested. > >SOB is needed by a person who submitted, no matter whether any other >tags are present. So, it's still mandatory in this case. > pedantically, yes. you can link to perex' patch instead, as it's literally the same one, sans the reviewed-by. (i don't think any of this really matters for re-posts of patches that have been publicly posted to the same list a few hours prior, as any legal challenge could be resolved within minutes anyway.) regards
diff --git a/sound/core/pcm_lib.c b/sound/core/pcm_lib.c index 3357ffae635f..6ad67e7e740c 100644 --- a/sound/core/pcm_lib.c +++ b/sound/core/pcm_lib.c @@ -63,7 +63,15 @@ void snd_pcm_playback_silence(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, snd_pcm_ufram } if (runtime->silence_filled >= runtime->buffer_size) return; - noise_dist = snd_pcm_playback_hw_avail(runtime) + runtime->silence_filled; + /* initialization outside pointer updates */ + if (new_hw_ptr == ULONG_MAX) + new_hw_ptr = runtime->status->hw_ptr; + /* get hw_avail with the boundary crossing */ + noise_dist = appl_ptr - new_hw_ptr; + if (noise_dist < 0) + noise_dist += runtime->boundary; + /* total noise distance */ + noise_dist += runtime->silence_filled; if (noise_dist >= (snd_pcm_sframes_t) runtime->silence_threshold) return; frames = runtime->silence_threshold - noise_dist;