[alsa-devel] FW: Further goals of thread-safe PCM API

[Takashi Iwai]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:45:55 +0200,
Wischer, Timo (ADITG/SW1) wrote:
> 
> Hi Takashi,
> 
> All our test cases are working fine again with your commit [1].
> Thanks a lot.

Thanks for checking.

> I think all commits which introducing unlocked versions of the API functions can be reverted e.g [2].
> Or what do you think? 

Using the unlocked version is correct per se, so I don't think we need
to remove it.


thanks,

Takashi

> 
> [1] http://git.alsa-project.org/?p=alsa-lib.git;a=commit;h=1cb217ead9aff029f194208bf484be1ba956b194
> [2] http://git.alsa-project.org/?p=alsa-lib.git;a=commitdiff;h=24e63b75275e9c923c336b8dba3919b980e8f234
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Timo Wischer
> Software Group I (ADITG/SW1)
> 
> Tel. +49 5121 49 6938
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Takashi Iwai [mailto:tiwai at suse.de] 
> Sent: Freitag, 21. April 2017 20:44
> To: Wischer, Timo (ADITG/SW1)
> Cc: alsa-devel at alsa-project.org
> Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] FW: Further goals of thread-safe PCM API
> 
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:42:06 +0200,
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:01:47 +0200,
> > Wischer, Timo (ADITG/SW1) wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi everyone,
> > > 
> > > I am wondering about the implementation of the new thread-safety feature [1].
> > > There are so many issues with deadlocks (e.g. [3]) which were already solved but also which are not yet solved.
> > > 
> > > Why do you not using a recursive mutex to avoid most of this deadlocks?
> > > Using PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE as the pthread attribute [2].
> > 
> > It sounds like a good idea.
> > Although the plugin should be written not to cause deadlock, it's 
> > better to avoid such a pain by allowing the recursive lock.
> > 
> > Care to test and submit the proper patch?
> 
> Never mind, I committed a quick fix to git repo now.
> Thanks for the suggestion!
> 
> 
> Takashi
>