On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 12:29 +0900, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:13 AM, David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This is solved by using runtime->twake as the number of samples needed > > for a wakeup in addition to selecting the proper wait queue to wake in > > snd_pcm_update_state(). This requires twake to be non-zero when used > > by snd_pcm_lib_{read,write}1() even if avail_min is zero. > > http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2010-June/028786.html Hmm, yes, I should have search the archives a bit. I originally tuned out the thread you listed as a request for parameter help, and missed your original postings. I think my patch is pretty close to preserving the existing semantics as it doesn't change poll() at all, but I do see a case where the user could get a read/write back prior to avail_min samples being ready. I think that's fixable -- if the user is requesting a read/write of less than avail_min samples, then we have to wait for avail_min regardless. Takashi, is your concern about semantics the proper honoring of avail_min in all cases, or preserving the current behavior of waiting for two periods when avail_min is set to the size of one period? Dave _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel