Re: jack-driver updated


On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:44:01AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
On 16.07.2017 15:42, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
 IMHO none of these issues is so critical that it is a blocker for
merging. I.e. even if we ship jack-driver as-is, we're still better off than
without it.

Wrong. Sorry, there's no easier way to put it. The current shape of the jack
driver comes close to an end user assault and the world needs to be saved from it!

From your comments I believe that you didn't review the latest greatest version
of the code, which would be:

Why do I think that?

      * assert_return() instead of g_return*_if_fail

This has been fixed.

- "FIXME: get rid of device unloading, so that the jackd connection can be kept
initialized" <- send patches

This FIXME doesn't exist in the current version.

- "FIXME: we need a way to indicate an error here" <- at the very least, *print*
a message, so developers can trace the error conditions mentioned in the code

This FIXME doesn't exist either in the current version.

I stopped comparing your comments with my code at this point, assuming that you
didn't test the latest version of the jack driver.

If you used an old version of the jack driver, this could explain the stability
issues you had. Let me know if you can still reproduce crashes with the current

And yes, I know there were valid comments in your email, that still apply to
the current state of the jack driver, so I should try to improve the driver
further based on this. With this mail I'm just trying to be sure that we speak
about the same version of the code.

   Cu... Stefan
Stefan Westerfeld,

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]