On Mon, 03.05.10 19:15, David Henningsson (launchpad@epost.diwic.se) wrote:
I'll just resend my patch after having discussed it on LAC with Lennart.
Compared to the previous patch this patch also adds a comment Lennart
wanted, and also does the same change for jack sources.
Thanks!
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 23.03.10 00:36, David Henningsson (launchpad@epost.diwic.se)
wrote:
What is missing is that the jack loop does not depend on the PA sink to
be around resp. the PA IO loop doesn't call into jack when it is
dead. If either of that is implemented (and
On Tue, 23.03.10 00:36, David Henningsson (launchpad@epost.diwic.se) wrote:
What is missing is that the jack loop does not depend on the PA sink to
be around resp. the PA IO loop doesn't call into jack when it is
dead. If either of that is implemented (and then destruction order
On Sun, 14.03.10 20:50, David Henningsson (launchpad@epost.diwic.se) wrote:
On sink unlinking, existing sink inputs are moved, which in turn calls
a get latency callback, which references the jack client. Therefore,
make sure the sink is unlinked before the client is closed. Failure to
do
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun, 14.03.10 20:50, David Henningsson (launchpad@epost.diwic.se)
wrote:
On sink unlinking, existing sink inputs are moved, which in turn calls
a get latency callback, which references the jack client. Therefore,
make sure the sink is unlinked before the
'Twas brillig, and David Henningsson at 14/03/10 19:50 did gyre and gimble:
On sink unlinking, existing sink inputs are moved, which in turn calls
a get latency callback, which references the jack client. Therefore,
make sure the sink is unlinked before the client is closed. Failure to
do so
On sink unlinking, existing sink inputs are moved, which in turn calls
a get latency callback, which references the jack client. Therefore,
make sure the sink is unlinked before the client is closed. Failure to
do so might lead to SIGSEGV.
This patch simply moves the call to pa_sink_unlink above
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:50 PM, David Henningsson
launchpad@epost.diwic.se wrote:
@Daniel T Chen: let me know if you want this patch as a merge proposal as
well. There is no bug in Launchpad AFAIK.
For release tracking purposes, please file a bug and also propose a
merge. Thanks!
