qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 00/49] audio: -audiodev option, multiple opti


From: Kővágó Zoltán
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 00/49] audio: -audiodev option, multiple options
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 18:38:22 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0

2015-09-03 17:07 keltezéssel, Eric Blake írta:
On 09/03/2015 04:15 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On Fr, 2015-08-21 at 17:36 +0200, Kővágó, Zoltán wrote:
This patch series adds support to multiple audio backends.  Afterwards I
add support to multiple backends.  Audio fronteds gain a new audiodev
option to specify the id of the audiodev to use.  The audiodev= option
is required, unless you use the old environment variable based
configuration, in that case it must not used (and you can't use multiple
backends).

Finally I also make mixeng usage optional, it can save us some useless
format converting when not needed.  Also makes easier to support formats
currently not supported by qemu (as only the backend has to support it,
not the mixeng).

For easier testing pull https://github.com/DirtYiCE/qemu.git tag
audio-multi-v2.

Please review.

Adding qapi & net folks to Cc.  Ping.

How to go forward with the QAPI bits in this series (Patches 1-9)?
Patch #1 got reviews from block folks.  Patch #3 has a comment from
Eduardo pending.  What about the other ones?  Fine as-is?  I remember
from the pre-2.4 freeze discussions that there at least was agreement
that flattening the qapi structs is the way to go.

Still on my list of patches to review (seems to be a rather large list,
sadly).  I should get to it before Monday.


I'd prefer if the qapi maintainers can pick up and merge these patches.
But I can also merge them via audio queue if I get reviews from the qapi
maintainers.

I'll leave it up to Markus on which tree is better for the qapi patches
to go through.


Okay, I've rebased the patches to master and applied (some of) the changes suggested by Eric. Since it looks like there are still some problems with the qapi parts, it may be better if I split out the qapi patches into a separate series, and go back to the audio patches when the qapi bits are merged. Should I go ahead?

Zoltan



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]