[alsa-devel] [PATCH 0/3] Fallback mechanism for pulse plugin
gmane at colin.guthr.ie
Wed Sep 14 12:55:12 CEST 2011
'Twas brillig, and David Henningsson at 14/09/11 11:50 did gyre and gimble:
> On 09/14/2011 12:35 PM, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>> 'Twas brillig, and David Henningsson at 14/09/11 10:51 did gyre and
>>> On 09/13/2011 10:47 AM, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>>>> 'Twas brillig, and Takashi Iwai at 13/09/11 08:55 did gyre and gimble:
>>>>>> Yup I think so. I'll put this on my list (I did try and suggest
>>>>>> something like this a while back, but got little in the way of
>>>>>> - I wanted to standardise things rather than have distro hacks
>>>>>> everywhere - can't seem to find the email now, so I'll just resend it
>>>>>> when I have some time to think straight)
>>>>> Yeah, we want to have some really easy way to check whether PA is
>>>>> enabled or not. For example, in the case of X11, you can check
>>>>> $DISPLAY (or options are given explicitly) as a primary check.
>>>> Yeah, but sadly I don't think this is possible. The Ubuntu solution for
>>>> example works differently to yours. (Disclaimer, I've already said I
>>>> think this is ugly). It works by altering the config file dynamically
>>>> such that the default is either dmix or pulse depending on whether
>>>> PA is
>>>> running. Of course "PA is running" is a broken check in the first place
>>>> (see the "ugly" word in my disclaimer!) as we could be dealing with
>>>> clients and remote PA daemons only, in which case there is no running
>>> I think adding a function in libpulse named is_PA_enabled() makes sense,
>>> as discussed somewhere else in this thread. Once we have that, we should
>>> change "PA is running" to "file_exists(libpulse.so.x)&&
>>> dlopen(libpulse.so.x)&& is_PA_enabled()". Does that seem to be a
>>> reasonable solution?
>> It depends on how clever the check is.
> That would be an PulseAudio internal problem, I assume - i e, it is up
> to PulseAudio to make that check clever enough, or face the wrath of
> ugly workarounds ;-)
Well, my main concern is that we have to be quite certain that we can
make it work without connecting to PA.
Otherwise we may end up connecting twice, once to probe and a second
time for the actual connection.
If it turns out we *have* to try and connect to make the check work
properly, then having a separate API check is unneeded and potentially
unreliable or inefficient.
So perhaps we don't have specific checks, but instead just try and
connect? Maybe that's better overall.
However, I can see the desire and general usefulness of a synchronous
check, so it's quite desirable. We just need to be sure it can be done
(at the moment I think it can, but there are so many corner cases it's
hard to be 100% confident I'm thinking of them all!)
Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/]
Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/]
PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/]
Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
More information about the Alsa-devel