At Mon, 02 Feb 2009 08:02:29 +0100, I wrote: > > At Mon, 2 Feb 2009 03:50:22 +0100, > Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > Heya! > > > > If we look into the pcm example how snd_pcm_poll_descriptors_revents() > > is used then we can see that the revents parameter apparently is > > supposed to be a single integer. (which makes a lot of sense to me) > > > > http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/alsa-lib/_2test_2pcm_8c-example.html#a33 > > > > However, snd_pcm_wait_nocheck() calls the same function and assumes it > > is a complete array! > > > > http://git.alsa-project.org/?p=alsa-lib.git;a=blob;f=src/pcm/pcm.c;h=74d1d1a4bd6083cd461b6d793c0ae41cca912f16;hb=HEAD#l2368 > > > > So what's it now? It makes more sense to me if it would be a single > > fd. > > No, it's a bug in test/pcm.c. As documented, the API converts (fixes) > each poll_fd in the given array. Hmm.. just looking through the whole tree again, this thing seems mixed up weirdly right now. At least, the latest pcm_hw.c assumes the single revent. Meanwhile, the old pcm_multi.c assumed the multiple revents. As you notice the work "revents", the function itself supposes the multiple events. However, obviously, handling the single revent is much easier for applications. So I believe we should go to the current pcm_hw.c implementation way, i.e. demangling to a single revent. But, yes, more investigations and fixes are needed. Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
