Today Abramo Bagnara wrote:
>Paul Davis wrote:
>>
>> >Don't make this mistake: poll *have* to return immediately in *all*
>> >cases where to wait is useless (i.e. when no non-user driven event may
>> >happen).
>> >
>> >This is the rule you need to remember.
>>
>> where does this rule come from? i was under the impression that
>> poll(2) should timeout in those cases, not return immediately.
>
>Common sense I'd say ;-) Why to wait for events that cannot happens?
>
>The "Waiting for Godot" approach seems not sensible in CS.
well, if there are > 2 threads, one only polling and others doing
management work -- and this is probably the most useful approach to low-
latency PCM IO -- it is imaginable that a non-polling thread starts and
stops the device.
so in this case, the POLL{IN|OUT} events _can_ happen without the
device being started when poll() was called, right?
i'd like to throw in that multithreaded common-sense differs greatly from
common common-sense ;)
tim
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
