[pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH] reserve-monitor: Don't trigger on our own events

[Ian Malone]

On 15 January 2013 07:41, Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/13/2013 03:02 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
>>
>> On 11 January 2013 14:57, David Henningsson
>> <david.henningsson at canonical.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/11/2013 02:37 PM, Brendan Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/11/2013 02:04 PM, David Henningsson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This fixes a bug where pulseaudio would give up the device (due to
>>>>> a request from JACK), but then immediately grab it again because
>>>>> the monitor callback fired, telling that the device is now available.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Note: the protocol does not specify a timeout, i e if pulseaudio
>>>>> is requested to give its device up but JACK does not grab the dbus
>>>>> name,
>>>>> at what point is PulseAudio allowed to re-grab it?)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this a fix for the bug that is mentioned in this thread?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/2012-November/015254.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was more than one thing that
>>> needed fixing here.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, unfortunately applied to 2.1 this doesn't fix that particular
>> problem (in fact stops 'test' playback in the phonon setup being
>> played). The issue in the November thread may have been fixed in
>> 2.99.3, or maybe my testing was inconsistent. (That it doesn't fix one
>> particular error is of course not an objection to a patch that fixes
>> others.)
>>
> Hi Ian,
>
> is this in conjuction with Tanu's patch as well?

>From the ongoing discussion I gather both David and Tanu's patches do
basically the same thing, and I hadn't tried applying both. When I
noticed 2.99.3 worked I ran through a git bisect to find the commit I
mentioned in the other email
(cd1102cce01e47645ed03ddf46a0a8b80d65fc9e) which on its own applied to
2.1 avoids triggering the issue.

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk