>>> For example, check snd_pcm_playback_avail() and co. That contains a
>>> couple of more condition checks and corrections due to the possible
>>> boundary crossing. (Here, runtime->boundary may differ depending on
>>> 32 or 64bit context.)
>>>
>>> The actual implementation of the backward move check would be slightly
>>> different from those, but I hope you get my idea.
>>
>> I think I do but not sure how to precisely deal with the boundary
>> wrap-around.
>>
>> The only suggestion I have at this point would be to compare the 'avail'
>> space before and after the appl_ptr changes in pcm_lib_apply_appl_ptr().
>> If the 'avail' space grows as a result of user-space changes, that
>> indicates a rewind (both for capture and playback), doesn't it?
>
> There are a few different ways, and a simple one would be to treat as
> a rewind if the change isn't 0..buffer_size. e.g.
>
> snd_pcm_sframes_t diff = new_ptr - old_ptr;
>
> if (diff >= 0) {
> if (diff > buffer_size)
> return REWIND;
> } else {
> if (boundary + diff > buffer_size)
> return REWIND;
> }
> return OK;
>
> Or, if a rewind is defined to be -buffer_size..-1, it'd be like:
>
> snd_pcm_sframes_t diff = new_ptr - old_ptr;
>
> if (diff >= 0) {
> if (boundary - diff <= buffer_size)
> return REWIND;
> } else {
> if (-diff <= buffer_size)
> return REWIND;
> }
> return OK;
ok, I'll trust your math :-)
> In either way, the new_ptr has to be validated beforehand that it's
> within 0..boundary-1. (old_ptr is assumed to be valid.)
In the 3 of the calls to pcm_lib_apply_appl_ptr(), the check is done
already prior to calling that function
if (appl_ptr >= runtime->boundary)
appl_ptr -= runtime->boundary;
err = pcm_lib_apply_appl_ptr(substream, appl_ptr);
it's rather unclear to me why the same check is not done for sync_ptr, e.g.
if (!(sync_ptr.flags & SNDRV_PCM_SYNC_PTR_APPL)) {
err = pcm_lib_apply_appl_ptr(substream,
sync_ptr.c.control.appl_ptr);
if (!(sflags & SNDRV_PCM_SYNC_PTR_APPL)) {
err = pcm_lib_apply_appl_ptr(substream,
scontrol.appl_ptr);
Should I add a check there, or add a check inside of
pcm_lib_apply_appl_ptr() which would be a duplicate in the majority of
cases?
