02.10.2014 19:58, David Henningsson wrote:
> @@ -216,6 +216,10 @@ static int sink_input_pop_cb(pa_sink_input *i, size_t nbytes, pa_memchunk *chunk
> pa_memchunk nchunk;
>
> pa_sink_render(u->sink, nbytes, &nchunk);
> + if (nchunk.memblock == u->sink->silence.memblock) {
> + pa_memblock_unref(nchunk.memblock);
> + return -1;
> + }
> pa_memblockq_push(u->memblockq, &nchunk);
> pa_memblock_unref(nchunk.memblock);
> }
This chunk looks correct if we ignore the tail of the filter response.
It should be split out as a separate patch and applied.
> @@ -265,6 +269,23 @@ static int sink_input_pop_cb(pa_sink_input *i, size_t nbytes, pa_memchunk *chunk
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/* Called from thread context */
> +
> +static bool sink_input_process_underrun_cb(pa_sink_input *i) {
> + struct userdata *u;
> +
> + pa_sink_input_assert_ref(i);
> + pa_assert_se(u = i->userdata);
> +
> + if (!PA_SINK_IS_LINKED(u->sink->thread_info.state) ||
> + !PA_SINK_INPUT_IS_LINKED(u->sink_input->thread_info.state))
> + return false;
> +
> + pa_log_debug("sink_input_process_underrun_cb for virtual sink");
> + return pa_sink_process_input_underruns(u->sink, 0);
> +}
> +
> +
> /* Called from I/O thread context */
> static void sink_input_process_rewind_cb(pa_sink_input *i, size_t nbytes) {
> struct userdata *u;
> @@ -586,6 +607,7 @@ int pa__init(pa_module*m) {
> goto fail;
>
> u->sink_input->pop = sink_input_pop_cb;
> + u->sink_input->process_underrun = sink_input_process_underrun_cb;
> u->sink_input->process_rewind = sink_input_process_rewind_cb;
> u->sink_input->update_max_rewind = sink_input_update_max_rewind_cb;
> u->sink_input->update_max_request = sink_input_update_max_request_cb;
>
And for this I have doubts whether this is a right approach at all. By
analogy with the ALSA sink, I'd expect that
pa_sink_process_input_underruns() will be called from
sink_input_pop_cb() - but I am also not sure if this is a viable
approach. But at least it won't have the "correct for only one sink
input" limitation.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
