On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 15:41 +0100, Georg Chini wrote: > On 21.03.2016 15:11, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 15:53 +0200, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > >> That aside, it seems to me that we shouldn't care about the current > >> cork state anyway. If the stream is corked when we send the cork > >> request, the application has two reasons to have the stream corked: the > >> first reason is whatever reason made the application cork the stream in > >> the first place, and the second reason is our cork request. When we > >> send the uncork request, only one of those reasons goes away. It's up > >> to the application to keep track of its corking reasons, and keep the > >> stream corked as long as there is any reason to do so. > > The cork state checking was added here: > > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/pulseaudio/pulseaudio/commit/?id=dda564f50b55340ff4bfbaa8d6d6fc6427f764f4 > > > > Colin mentions paused Rhythmbox as an example use case where it would > > make sense to avoid sending the cork/uncork requests. In my opinion > > Rhythmbox shouldn't blindly unpause when it receives an uncork request > > from PulseAudio, but if it does, then it might not be a good idea to > > change the logic. This should be tested, but Rhythmbox is somehow > > totally broken on this machine (won't play anything), so I can't do > > that. > > > > -- > > Tanu > > I don't touch the cork/uncork/mute/unmute logic for existing streams > with that patch, only new streams are affected in so far that they are > muted. Yes, I know. Your patch ignores the cork state for new streams, which is good, but I tried to suggest that maybe it would be even if we ignored the cork state also for existing streams. -- Tanu
