Re: Why doesn't mixer control (values) have some kind of locking mechanism? (mutex?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 






ALSA control core allows applications to lock/unlock a control element
so that any write opreation to the control element fails for processes
except for owner process.

When a process requests `SNDRV_CTL_IOCTL_ELEM_LOCK`[1] against a
control element. After operating the request, the control element is
under 'owned by the process' state. In this state, any request of
`SNDRV_CTL_IOCTL_ELEM_WRITE` from the other processes fails with
`-EPERM`[2]. The write operation from the owner process is successful
only. When the owner process is going to finish, the state is
released[3].

ALSA userspace library, a.k.a alsa-lib, has a pair of
`snd_ctl_elem_lock()` and `snd_ctl_elem_unlock()` as its exported
API[4].

Thank you Sakamoto-san for this explanation, I wasn't even aware this existed.

What I was trying to describe in my earlier answer is a different need to have an atomic update of *multiple* controls.

If e.g. a DSP or hardware engine exposes two separate filters for left and right channels, and the coefficients for those filters are modified with separate controls, it would be really nice to have the capability of writing these controls separately, but have a 'commit' mechanism so that these updated coefficients are used at the same time by the left and right filters.
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
pulseaudio-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Audio Users]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux