On 10.04.2017 20:51, Georg Chini wrote:
> On 10.04.2017 16:36, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>> On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 16:27 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
>>> On 10.04.2017 16:23, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2017-04-08 at 20:34 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
>>>>> If source or sink are changed, the current sink input rate may be
>>>>> different
>>>>> from the default rate. Switch sink input rate back to default to
>>>>> avoid the
>>>>> influence of the previous combination of source and sink.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> src/modules/module-loopback.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
>>>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/src/modules/module-loopback.c
>>>>> b/src/modules/module-loopback.c
>>>>> index 2242c62c..535c27d2 100644
>>>>> --- a/src/modules/module-loopback.c
>>>>> +++ b/src/modules/module-loopback.c
>>>>> @@ -639,11 +639,18 @@ static void
>>>>> source_output_moving_cb(pa_source_output *o, pa_source *dest) {
>>>>> /* Send a mesage to the output thread that the source
>>>>> has changed.
>>>>> * If the sink is invalid here during a profile switching
>>>>> situation
>>>>> - * we can safely set push_called to false directly. */
>>>>> - if (u->sink_input->sink)
>>>>> + * we can safely set push_called to false directly. Also, the
>>>>> current
>>>>> + * sampling rate may be far away from the default rate if we
>>>>> are still
>>>>> + * recovering from a previous source or sink change, so reset
>>>>> rate to
>>>>> + * default before moving the source. If the sink is not
>>>>> valid, only
>>>>> + * update the sink input sample spec.*/
>>>>> + if (u->sink_input->sink) {
>>>>> pa_asyncmsgq_send(u->sink_input->sink->asyncmsgq,
>>>>> PA_MSGOBJECT(u->sink_input), SINK_INPUT_MESSAGE_SOURCE_CHANGED,
>>>>> NULL, 0, NULL);
>>>>> - else
>>>>> + pa_sink_input_set_rate(u->sink_input,
>>>>> u->source_output->sample_spec.rate);
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> u->output_thread_info.push_called = false;
>>>>> + u->sink_input->sample_spec.rate =
>>>>> u->source_output->sample_spec.rate;
>>>>> + }
>>>> pa_sink_input_set_rate() does other things too than just set
>>>> sample_spec.rate. I think you should always call
>>>> pa_sink_input_set_rate(), but since pa_sink_input_set_rate() currently
>>>> doesn't expect to be called in the middle of a move, it needs to be
>>>> fixed first.
>>>>
>>> I don't understand why it should not be enough to just set the sink
>>> input rate.
>> Did you look at the code in pa_sink_input_set_rate()? It updates
>> thread_info.sample_spec.rate, calls pa_resampler_set_input_rate() and
>> sends a subscription event. Do you think it's ok to skip these things?
>
> OK, but I still think I do not need to fix anything. Since there is no
> output thread
> at that point in time, I can directly do what is done in
> PA_SINK_INPUT_MESSAGE_SET_RATE.
> The subscription event will be sent by pa_sink_input_finish_move(). I
> wonder
> if we could simply put the update of the in_thread sample rate and the
> resampler
> in pa_sink_input_update_rate(), then my patch would need no change and
> we would
> also allow other callers to update the rate easily.
It seems to be easy to fix sink_input_set_rate() however, so I'll go
ahead and do that ...
