Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH] tunnel-{sink, source}-new: Fix assertion when used with loopback or combine-sink
On Sat, 2017-08-12 at 22:29 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
> Currently pulseaudio crashes with an assertion in
> pa_rtpoll_item_new_asyncmsgq_read()
> or pa_rtpoll_item_new_asyncmsgq_write() if a loopback is applied to a
> tunnel-new
> sink or source, because tunnel-{sink,source}-new do not set
> thread_info.rtpoll.
> The same applies to module-combine-sink and module-rtp-recv.
>
> This patch is not a complete fix for the problem but provides a temporary
> band-aid
> by initializing thread_info.rtpoll properly. The rtpoll created is never run,
> but
> loopback and combine-sink nevertheless work, see comments in the code.
>
> This patch does not work for module-rtp-recv, but using rtp-recv with a remote
> sink does not seem to make a lot of sense anyway.
>
> Bug link: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73429
> ---
> src/modules/module-tunnel-sink-new.c | 15 +++
> src/modules/module-tunnel-source-new.c | 12
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
Thanks! Pushed to next.
--
Tanu
https://www.patreon.com/tanuk
___
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
pulseaudio-discuss@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] PulseAudio Network Sink: Respect alternative sample rate and format
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 20:33 +0200, Maximilian Böhm wrote: > A bit unlucky but at least now I know that the tunnel sink doesn't > switch the sample rate – after you initiate a server connection, > right? So, to be sure, what happens when I start a 48 kHz stream on > my client? The tunnel sample rate from the client to the server is determined at the time you load module-tunnel-sink. The rate is based on what you configured with the module arguments, or if you didn't configure anything, then it's the default rate that is configured in the client machine's daemon.conf. If the tunnel rate is 44.1 kHz, and you play a 48 kHz stream to the tunnel sink, resampling will happen on the client machine. -- Tanu https://www.patreon.com/tanuk ___ pulseaudio-discuss mailing list pulseaudio-discuss@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH 1/3] core: add generic message interface
On 16.08.2017 16:56, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Sun, 2017-08-06 at 15:29 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
On 06.08.2017 07:26, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Sat, 2017-08-05 at 21:32 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
On 05.08.2017 13:37, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 15:37 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
This patch adds a new feature to the core which allows to exchange
messages between objects. An object can register/unregister a message
handler with pa_core_message_handler_{register, unregister}() while
any other object can send a message to the handler using the
pa_core_send_message() function. A message has 5 arguments (apart
from passing the core):
recipient: The name of the message handler that will receive the message
message: message command
message_parameters: A string containing additional parameters
message_data: void pointer to some parameter structure, can be used
as alternative to message_parameters
response: Pointer to a response string that will be filled by the
message handler. The caller is responsible to free the string.
The patch is a precondition for the following patches that also allow
clients to send messages to pulseaudio objects.
Because not every message handler should be visible to clients, a flag
was added to the handler structure which allows to mark a handler as
public or private.
There is no restriction on object names, except that a handler name
always starts with a "/". The intention is to use a path-like syntax,
for example /core/sink_1 for a sink or /name/instances/index for modules.
The exact naming convention still needs to be agreed.
Message groups are also implemented, so that a handler can subscribe
to a message group using pa_core_message_handler_group_[un]subscribe()
to receive messages sent to the group. To distinguish group and handler
names, group names lack the leading "/". Some of the code used to
implement the message groups was adapted from hook-list.c. Message
groups are created/deleted implicitely on subscription/unsubscription.
The messaging interface can serve as a full replacement for the current
hook system with several advantages:
- no need to change header files when a new handler/group is implemented
- slightly simpler registration interface
- multi-purpose message handlers that can handle multiple events
- mesage handlers may also be accessible from the client side
We agree that it's good to allow clients to send messages to modules.
Unfortunately, in this patch you're assuming that we'll also replace
hooks with the same system. Can we please keep things simple and do one
change at a time? I'm not enthusiastic about replacing hooks, and I'd
rather move on with the client message passing before getting consensus
on the hook stuff.
For reference, here's a list of unnecessary (from pure client message
passing point of view) things I can gather from the commit message:
- void pointer argument in message handlers
- public/private flag
- message groups (signals would seem like a better fit for the purpose
anyway)
Possibly I am only using the wrong words. Let me put it like that:
My intention is not to replace the hooks but to incorporate them
into a more general concept. I even used a lot of the code and
put it in the new message context. The functionality of the hooks
is a subset of the messages concept and is fully preserved.
So by replacing hooks with messages, nothing would be lost
(at least not intentionally), only the interface would change.
Take a look at the second patch of the series for an example.
The only disadvantage I can think of is that there is one more
lookup step required compared to the hooks when finding
the right handler.
For starters, the conversion has to be implemented, reviewed, and the
new interface has to be learned by everyone. Even if I thought that the
message system didn't have any API design problems, it's not clear that
the conversion would be worth the effort. I would probably be ok with
some new API that allows using one callback for multiple hooks, but I
think you'll need to get an ok from Arun too. I won't elaborate on the
API design issues now, because I don't think it's good to block the
client message passing feature.
Why would it be urgent to get the feature implemented? Nobody is
pressing us and we are designing a new API.
It's not urgent, that's true, but it would be nice to make some
progress instead of having things stuck in long discussions because you
bundle stuff I don't like with the stuff we already agreed on earlier.
So here we have the real reason - you just don't like it. Well, I can't
argue with that, but still could not refrain from adding a few
comments further below.
In my opinion, most
of the thinking should go into the design phase to get it right from
the start. It's not a good idea to come up with something quick,
only to have more work patching it up later.
Small incremental changes are generally nicer to work with than big
changes. The things under
Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH 1/3] core: add generic message interface
On Sun, 2017-08-06 at 15:29 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
> On 06.08.2017 07:26, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-08-05 at 21:32 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
> > > On 05.08.2017 13:37, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 15:37 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
> > > > > This patch adds a new feature to the core which allows to exchange
> > > > > messages between objects. An object can register/unregister a message
> > > > > handler with pa_core_message_handler_{register, unregister}() while
> > > > > any other object can send a message to the handler using the
> > > > > pa_core_send_message() function. A message has 5 arguments (apart
> > > > > from passing the core):
> > > > >
> > > > > recipient: The name of the message handler that will receive the
> > > > > message
> > > > > message: message command
> > > > > message_parameters: A string containing additional parameters
> > > > > message_data: void pointer to some parameter structure, can be used
> > > > > as alternative to message_parameters
> > > > > response: Pointer to a response string that will be filled by the
> > > > > message handler. The caller is responsible to free the
> > > > > string.
> > > > >
> > > > > The patch is a precondition for the following patches that also allow
> > > > > clients to send messages to pulseaudio objects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because not every message handler should be visible to clients, a flag
> > > > > was added to the handler structure which allows to mark a handler as
> > > > > public or private.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no restriction on object names, except that a handler name
> > > > > always starts with a "/". The intention is to use a path-like syntax,
> > > > > for example /core/sink_1 for a sink or /name/instances/index for
> > > > > modules.
> > > > > The exact naming convention still needs to be agreed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Message groups are also implemented, so that a handler can subscribe
> > > > > to a message group using pa_core_message_handler_group_[un]subscribe()
> > > > > to receive messages sent to the group. To distinguish group and
> > > > > handler
> > > > > names, group names lack the leading "/". Some of the code used to
> > > > > implement the message groups was adapted from hook-list.c. Message
> > > > > groups are created/deleted implicitely on subscription/unsubscription.
> > > > >
> > > > > The messaging interface can serve as a full replacement for the
> > > > > current
> > > > > hook system with several advantages:
> > > > > - no need to change header files when a new handler/group is
> > > > > implemented
> > > > > - slightly simpler registration interface
> > > > > - multi-purpose message handlers that can handle multiple events
> > > > > - mesage handlers may also be accessible from the client side
> > > >
> > > > We agree that it's good to allow clients to send messages to modules.
> > > > Unfortunately, in this patch you're assuming that we'll also replace
> > > > hooks with the same system. Can we please keep things simple and do one
> > > > change at a time? I'm not enthusiastic about replacing hooks, and I'd
> > > > rather move on with the client message passing before getting consensus
> > > > on the hook stuff.
> > > >
> > > > For reference, here's a list of unnecessary (from pure client message
> > > > passing point of view) things I can gather from the commit message:
> > > >
> > > > - void pointer argument in message handlers
> > > > - public/private flag
> > > > - message groups (signals would seem like a better fit for the purpose
> > > > anyway)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Possibly I am only using the wrong words. Let me put it like that:
> > > My intention is not to replace the hooks but to incorporate them
> > > into a more general concept. I even used a lot of the code and
> > > put it in the new message context. The functionality of the hooks
> > > is a subset of the messages concept and is fully preserved.
> > > So by replacing hooks with messages, nothing would be lost
> > > (at least not intentionally), only the interface would change.
> > > Take a look at the second patch of the series for an example.
> > >
> > > The only disadvantage I can think of is that there is one more
> > > lookup step required compared to the hooks when finding
> > > the right handler.
> >
> > For starters, the conversion has to be implemented, reviewed, and the
> > new interface has to be learned by everyone. Even if I thought that the
> > message system didn't have any API design problems, it's not clear that
> > the conversion would be worth the effort. I would probably be ok with
> > some new API that allows using one callback for multiple hooks, but I
> > think you'll need to get an ok from Arun too. I won't elaborate on the
> > API design issues now, because I don't think it's good to block the
> > client message passing feature.
>
> Why would it be urgent to get the feature implemented? Nobody is
> pressing us and we are
