On 08/12/2013 01:34 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > On Mon, 2013-08-12 at 13:28 +0200, David Henningsson wrote: >> On 08/12/2013 12:18 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: >>> On Mon, 2013-08-12 at 09:15 +0200, David Henningsson wrote: >>>> On 08/09/2013 08:57 AM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: >>>>> Monitor sources don't have the update_rate() callback set, so their rate was >>>>> not being changed when changing the sink rate. >>>> >>>> For better understanding (I was a little confused first), one could add >>>> a sentence to the commit comment saying e g "This patch fixes this by >>>> changing the rate correctly, even if the update_rate callback is not set". >>> >>> Ok. >>> >>>> Can this also happen to sinks, that there might be types of sinks that >>>> do not have update_rate set, and might fall into the same bug? >>> >>> I don't think there are such sinks. Monitor sources are special, because >>> they are automatically created by the core. All other sources and sinks >>> are supposed to set update_rate() if they support rate switching. >>> >> >> So, with this patch, it looks like sources not supporting rate >> switching, will not set update_rate initially, and then crash in >> assert(monitor_of) ? > > There's > > - if (!s->update_rate) > + if (!s->update_rate && !s->monitor_of) > return false; > > in the beginning of the patch. > Oh, missed that. So, would it not be easier just to add an update_rate callback to monitor sources (that have a sink with an update_rate callback?), if that is our indicator that a sink/source supports updating rates? -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. https://launchpad.net/~diwic
