[pulseaudio-discuss] Fighting rewinds / pulseaudio crash - update

David Henningsson david.henningsson at canonical.com
Mon Jan 31 03:53:42 PST 2011

On 2011-01-31 12:41, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and David Henningsson at 31/01/11 10:46 did gyre and gimble:
>> On 2011-01-31 10:41, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>>> Thanks for the update David :)
>> You're welcome :-)
>>>> PulseAudio #1 and #2: I believe these should be applied to PulseAudio
>>>> upstream.
>>> OK, I think you've given it sufficient testing and exposer to confirm
>>> this. Can I just ask if these are "safe" if the corresponding gst fixes
>>> are not committed? (i.e. will GST generally bork or should it cope as
>>> well as currently without it's patches?)
>> Both are optimisations - gst patch only will be better than no patch at
>> all, and PA patch only will be better than no patch at all. Most people
>> will see it solved by either patch, but I guess that there are machines
>> so slow that you'll need both.
> No worries, just wanted to make sure that it wasn't a "paired" updated -
> e.g. the PA commits *required* the GST ones (I figured it was very
> unlikely but with the Skype issue on the third patch, I figured I'd be
> safer ask!)
>>> Also, master only or master+s-q
>>> (I'm personally favouring the latter).
>> Me too.
> OK, applied to my tree now with a tiny modification due to Lennart's
> rate limit patch on s-q which I've now merged to master (with updates
> for additional calls).
> Will push once I've done a few more bits and bobs.

Thanks :-) This, and that Takashi agreed to take my ALSA patch in 2.6.38 
as well (totally unrelated), this might actually turn out to be a really 
good day! :-)

David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.

More information about the pulseaudio-discuss mailing list