Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] ALSA: vsnd: Add Xen para-virtualized frontend driver | From | Takashi Sakamoto <> | Date | Thu, 2 Nov 2017 18:44:05 +0900 |
| |
On Oct 30 2017 15:33, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > This is an attempt to summarize previous discussions on Xen para-virtual > sound driver. > > A first attempt has been made to upstream the driver [1] which brought > number > of fundamental questions, one of the biggest ones was that the frontend > driver > has no means to synchronize its period elapsed event with the host driver, > but uses software emulation on the guest side [2] with a timer. > In order to address this a change to the existing Xen para-virtual sound > protocol [3] was proposed to fill this gap [4] and remove emulation: > 1. Introduced a new event channel from back to front > 2. New event with number of bytes played/captured (XENSND_EVT_CUR_POS, > to be used for sending snd_pcm_period_elapsed at frontend > (in Linux implementation, sent in bytes, not frames to make the protocol > generic and consistent) > 3. New request for playback/capture control (XENSND_OP_TRIGGER) with > start/pause/stop/resume sub-ops. > > Along with these changes other comments on the driver were addressed, > e.g. split into smaller chunks, moved the driver from misc to xen etc. [5]. > > Hope, this helps to get the full picture of what was discussed and makes it > possible to move forward: if the approach seems ok, then I'll start > upstreaming the changes to the sndif protocol and then will send the > updated > version of the driver for the further review.
This message has below line in its header.
> In-Reply-To: <e56a09e9-da66-b748-4e82-4b96a18cef32@gmail.com>
This field is defined in RFC822[1], and recent mail clients use this header field to associate the message to a message which the field indicates. This results in a series of messages, so-called 'message thread'. Iwai-san would like you to start a new message thread for your topic. Would you please post this message again without the header field?
Generally, receiving no reactions means that readers/reviewers don't get enough information for your idea yet. (Of course, there's a probability that your work attracts no one...) In this case, submitting more resources is better, rather than requesting comments to them. For instance, you can point links to backend/frontend implementation as para-virtualization drivers which use the new feature of interface, if you did work for it. Indicating procedure to use a series of your work is better for test, if possible.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0822.txt
Regards
Takashi Sakamoto
| |