On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 09:52 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > On 16 December 2015 at 00:36, Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 21:49 +0530, arun at accosted.net wrote: > > > From: Arun Raghavan <git at arunraghavan.net> > > > > > > There doesn't appear to be a good reason to restrict the memchunk length > > > to the resample max block size -- we're going to have the memory around > > > anyway. > > > > I think the reason is to make sure that we don't feed the resampler > > bigger chunks than what it can handle. The resampler has to allocate > > other memblocks during its operation, and those memblocks may be bigger > > than the input block, so if the input block is too large, the > > requirements for the other blocks will grow beyond the mempool max > > block size. > > > > However, pa_sink_input_peek() seems to protect against this anyway when > > doing resampling (it processes the input in smaller pieces if it's > > larger than the resampler max block size), so maybe this change is safe > > anyway. > > > > > Moreover, callers of pa_sink_input_get_silence() don't seem to > > > actually care about the chunk itself, just the memblock for creating > > > their own pa_memblockq. > > > > I don't understand this comment. pa_memblockq cares about the chunk > > itself, not just the memblock. > > I misread that code. It does work with the chunk, not the memblock of course. Do you plan to send v2 of this patch some time soon? -- Tanu
