From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262653AbVAVDDp (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:03:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262654AbVAVDDp (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:03:45 -0500 Received: from arnor.apana.org.au ([203.14.152.115]:22790 "EHLO arnor.apana.org.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262653AbVAVDDk (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:03:40 -0500 Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:02:58 +1100 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: [patch 2.4.29] i810_audio: offset LVI from CIV to avoid stalled start Message-ID: <20050122030258.GA776@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <20050120202258.GA7687@tuxdriver.com> <20050120210739.GC7687@tuxdriver.com> <20050120212346.GD7687@tuxdriver.com> <20050120220120.GF7687@tuxdriver.com> <20050120220713.GA16599@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050120220713.GA16599@gondor.apana.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i From: Herbert Xu Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 09:07:13AM +1100, herbert wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 05:01:21PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 04:23:46PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > > > > + /* if we are currently stopped, then our CIV is actually set to our > > > + * *last* sg segment and we are ready to wrap to the next. However, > > > + * if we set our LVI to the last sg segment, then it won't wrap to > > > + * the next sg segment, it won't even get a start. So, instead, when > > > + * we are stopped, we increment the CIV value to the next sg segment > > > + * to be played so that when we call start, things will operate > > > + * properly > > > + */ > > > > Is this (slightly altered) comment more to your liking? If so, > > I'll post an additive patch for the 2.6 version... > > IMHO the last sentence is still wrong. We're not touching the value > of CIV at all. We're setting LVI to CIV + 1... > > OTOH, perhaps we should actually try implementing what the comment > suggests? OK I dug into the archives and found that the reason we need to do it this way is because you can't set the value of CIV directly. So how about s/CIV/LVI/ in the last sentence? Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt