On 05/30/2013 10:26 AM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 01:45 +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
>> On 05/29/2013 04:57 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 14:45 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 13:33 +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
>>>>> e->description is a pointer, not a fixed char array. Hence it
>>>>> makes no sense to use strncmp.
>>>>>
>>>>> This fixes a compiler warning when compiling under Ubuntu.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Henningsson <david.henningsson at canonical.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> src/modules/module-device-manager.c | 4 ++--
>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/src/modules/module-device-manager.c b/src/modules/module-device-manager.c
>>>>> index 207870d..390046f 100644
>>>>> --- a/src/modules/module-device-manager.c
>>>>> +++ b/src/modules/module-device-manager.c
>>>>> @@ -889,7 +889,7 @@ static pa_hook_result_t sink_new_hook_callback(pa_core *c, pa_sink_new_data *new
>>>>> name = pa_sprintf_malloc("sink:%s", new_data->name);
>>>>>
>>>>> if ((e = entry_read(u, name))) {
>>>>> - if (e->user_set_description && strncmp(e->description, pa_proplist_gets(new_data->proplist, PA_PROP_DEVICE_DESCRIPTION), sizeof(e->description)) != 0) {
>>>>> + if (e->user_set_description && strcmp(e->description, pa_proplist_gets(new_data->proplist, PA_PROP_DEVICE_DESCRIPTION)) != 0) {
>>>>
>>>> pa_proplist_gets() can return NULL, and if it does that, strcmp() will
>>>> crash.
>>>
>>> Actually, I think we should make sure that all sink implementations set
>>> PA_PROP_DEVICE_DESCRIPTION in new_data->proplist. Or even better, we
>>> could have a separate description field in the new_data struct. I'm
>>> dealing with sink descriptions myself currently, and I find it annoying
>>> having to access them through proplists, and if I can't assume that the
>>> property has been set, it's even more annoying.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, can you explain why
>> 1) You need a PA_PROP_DEVICE_DESCRIPTION for sinks (and sources, I
>> assume) in the first place?
>
> I intend to use the sink/source description as the node description too
> (for nodes that are backed by a sink or source, that is - if ports
> exist, they are used as the node backend instead, but not all sinks and
> sources are associated with a port).
>
>> 2) Why you need it so much that we should artificially create one in
>> all sink implementations even if there is no relevant information to add?
>
> How could there possibly be no relevant information to add? Surely every
> sink can have a sane human-readable description?
>
> pavucontrol needs a description anyway, because it uses sinks and
> sources as UI elements. For this reason I wouldn't be surprised if the
> situation already was such that every sink and source sets
> PA_PROP_DEVICE_DESCRIPTION.
>
>> 3) Why you can't write a helper function/macro if you find it annoying
>> to access the proplist in several places?
>>
>> My biggest worry is 2) here - we shouldn't create more information just
>> for the sake of it. I don't know what you want it for, but maybe a fall
>> back would be better - e g, using the sink description if there is no
>> device description property. This would be handled by the helper
>> function suggested in 3).
>
> Uh, it seems that you think that sinks have a separate description in
> addition to PA_PROP_DEVICE_DESCRIPTION. If they did, I'd have no
> problem.
>
Ah, it seems you are right. The PA_PROP_DEVICE_DESCRIPTION is being used
as a de-facto description of the sink (look e g in protocol-native where
a sink description is filled in).
It's probably too risky w r t existing clients to remove it from the
proplist. And I don't like storing the same information twice, so would
it be okay to have a pa_sink_get_description function?
Then I don't mind making it mandatory, assuming you go through all
existing sink/source implementations and verify that it is filled in
correctly.
--
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
https://launchpad.net/~diwic
