On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 14:56:28 +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > Dne 8.4.2016 v 12:24 Takashi Iwai napsal(a): > > On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 22:10:41 +0200, > > Martin Koegler wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:23:01PM -0400, Adam Goode wrote: > >>> Have you heard any objections? > >>> > >>> Also, would you plan to do a 1.1.2 release soon after accepting this, to > >>> get this functionality out quickly? > >> > >> Distributions already start to pick 1.1.1 up: > >> https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/382608 > >> https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/382611 > >> > >> I would object merging that patch, if there is no immediate patched 1.1.2 release available, > >> as otherwise 1.1.1 with a different API will get used by the mass. > > > > I have no strong opinion on this, so far. Either way (a quick 1.1.2 > > fix release, or introducing a new function in 1.1.2) isn't a big > > deal. Maybe the former is easier, but the latter is safer. > > > > Jaroslav, what's your take? > > (And no, let's not use the versioned symbols again :) > > What about 1.1.1.2 ? Do you mean 1.1.1.1? It's already confusing, as you see :) > This + "pcm_plugin: fix appl pointer not correct > when mmap_commit() return error" patch ? If you don't mind a quick release, we may do it, yes, no matter which version number is. But, meanwhile, I thought of the change again, and now wonder whether it's really right to return an error *and* -1. -1 conflicts with EPERM. And I thought there is no POSIX definition of error numbers, so in theory, -ENOSYS may be -1. thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
