On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 11:51 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:10:48 +0100, > Adrian McMenamin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 12:25 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > Another big concern is that spu_dma_work is initialized/rewritten > > > dynamically in spu_begin_dma() and aica_period_elapsed() via > > > INIT_WORK() and PREPARE_WOR(). This looks pretty strange and may be > > > racy. > > > > Actually, the two macros INIT_WORK and PREPARE_WORK use the same work > > queue but ask it to schedule the execution of two different (if very > > similar) functions start_spu_dma() - which does the initial transfer and > > more_spu_dma - which tops up the dma transfers. > > > > So I think I've got that right. > > What's wrong with using two individual work struct so that you > initialize them only once? > I wonder it because you already have unused fields work and work2... > They've gone actually. I need to initialise them because every call is a discrete processing job - ie I send one thing to go, then when a period has elapsed I schedule another transfer to run on the kernel thread. Isn't this the way it is meant to work? _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
