On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 20:02 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
> 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.
Thanks, I probably didn't notice Arun's mail at all (it's marked as
unread).
--
Tanu
https://www.patreon.com/tanuk
