On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Marc-Andr? Lureau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > I think we should remove the mixemu configure option. It makes code
> > bitrot. Patch #4 proves that. If you want to keep it because of the
> > overhead or other reasons I'd suggest to ma
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> I think we should remove the mixemu configure option. It makes code
> bitrot. Patch #4 proves that. If you want to keep it because of the
> overhead or other reasons I'd suggest to make it a runtime option.
To be fair, the patch #4 only
On 03/13/12 11:33, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 13.03.2012 11:19, schrieb Gerd Hoffmann:
>> Hi,
>>
I do to, except when they fix broken behaviour. More seriously, do you
have other concerns with the mixemu code?
>>>
>>> Sure - it adds overhead.
>>
>> The point of this patchset is to kill the
Am 13.03.2012 11:19, schrieb Gerd Hoffmann:
> Hi,
>
>>> I do to, except when they fix broken behaviour. More seriously, do you
>>> have other concerns with the mixemu code?
>>
>> Sure - it adds overhead.
>
> The point of this patchset is to kill the overhead if possible, i.e. try
> to pass down
Hi,
>> I do to, except when they fix broken behaviour. More seriously, do you
>> have other concerns with the mixemu code?
>
> Sure - it adds overhead.
The point of this patchset is to kill the overhead if possible, i.e. try
to pass down the volume the guest asked for all the way down to the
h
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Marc-Andr? Lureau wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:51 PM, malc wrote:
> >>
> >> > b. Other drivers are not affected
> >>
> >> I don't see yet how, but I will review other drivers ctl_{in,out}
> >> implementations
> >
> > You don't see how they can be affected or you don't s
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:51 PM, malc wrote:
>>
>> > b. Other drivers are not affected
>>
>> I don't see yet how, but I will review other drivers ctl_{in,out}
>> implementations
>
> You don't see how they can be affected or you don't see how you can
> figure that out?
I don't see how they can be
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Marc-Andr? Lureau wrote:
> Hi Vassili
>
> Thanks for your review!
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:44 PM, malc wrote:
> > a. Pulse/Spice have per connection volume
>
> Each playback/recorde stream has it's own volume, and that's what we
> control. We get the client full range
Hi Vassili
Thanks for your review!
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:44 PM, malc wrote:
> a. Pulse/Spice have per connection volume
Each playback/recorde stream has it's own volume, and that's what we
control. We get the client full range thanks to flat-volume logic
(implemented by PulseAudio and Windo
Hello,
This patch series implements client-side audio volume support. This reduces
confusion of guest users when volume control is not effective (because mixemu
is disabled or because client-side is muted and can't be unmuted by the guest..)
Instead, the backend is responsible for applying volu
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Marc-Andr? Lureau wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patch series implements client-side audio volume support. This
> reduces confusion of guest users when volume control is not effective
> (because mixemu is disabled or because client-side is muted and can't be
> unmuted by the gue
11 matches
Mail list logo
