On 16 January 2016 at 13:08, Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote: > 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? Do you see a need to change anything other than the commit message? I can just drop the last sentence. -- Arun
