On 08.06.2016 20:18, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> The old code makes no sense to me. Why would multiple references mean
> that a previously read-only memblock is suddenly writable? I'm pretty
> sure that the original intention was to treat multi-referenced blocks
> as read-only. I don't have any examples where the old code would have
> caused bad behaviour, however.
> ---
> src/pulsecore/memblock.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/pulsecore/memblock.c b/src/pulsecore/memblock.c
> index 17520ed..babe5cd 100644
> --- a/src/pulsecore/memblock.c
> +++ b/src/pulsecore/memblock.c
> @@ -497,7 +497,7 @@ bool pa_memblock_is_read_only(pa_memblock *b) {
> pa_assert(b);
> pa_assert(PA_REFCNT_VALUE(b) > 0);
>
> - return b->read_only && PA_REFCNT_VALUE(b) == 1;
> + return b->read_only || PA_REFCNT_VALUE(b) > 1;
> }
>
> /* No lock necessary */
Arun already acknowledged that patch, looks like you forgot
to push it.
Regards
Georg
