On 7 Jun, Tai-hwa Liang wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Don Lewis wrote: >> On 7 Jun, Tai-hwa Liang wrote: >> > On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Don Lewis wrote: >> >> The code that calls pcm_inprog() and prints the "x: 2" debug message >> >> appears to be an attempt at implementing a reader/writer lock. I'm >> >> pretty sure the failure that triggers the debug message is harmless, >> >> other than causing the sysctl() call to return EWOULDBLOCK. >> > >> > I'm glad to know that the message is harmless. However, the "x: %d" is >> > a little too obscured to endusers IMHO. Shouldn't that be protected by >> > #ifdef DIAGNOSTIC or something like PCM_DEBUG? >> >> This diagnotic message should probably just go away. Also the locking >> should be fixed to avoid the EWOULDBLOCK error. > > Should I file a PR or just forward the thread to the pcm maintainer? > (to be honest, I have no idea about who he/she is, luigi_at_ / cg_at_ / ?) I can take care of it, since I'm one of the last people to touch the pcm stuff. Fixing up the locking problems in the pcm code is also on my TODO list, but I haven't had time to work on it and I wouldn't complain if someone else committed proper fixes.Received on Mon Jun 07 2004 - 08:01:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:56 UTC