[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Is it time for remove (crap) ALSA from kernel tree ?
    At Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:44:42 +0200,
    Olivier Galibert wrote:
    > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 02:31:08PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
    > > So, do you mean the soft-mixing is the biggest issue? That's just a
    > > part of a design issue, and if we want to go to that way, the
    > > impelemtation would be trivial, regardless on ALSA or not. Totally
    > > irrelevant argument regarding "remove ALSA".
    > Soft mixing is actually the biggest issue because if you had
    > generalized soft-mixing in the kernel-visible audio ports[1] you would
    > win two things:
    > - programs could use the OSS API without interfering with the ALSA one
    > or which each other
    > - programs coult use the ALSA kernel API directly without interfering
    > either, which would allow alternative libalsa implementations for
    > those who hate the current one
    > Frankly, mandatory libraries are extremely annoying, and mandatory
    > extremely complex overdesigned libraries are simply unbearable.

    Hm... I don't agree much with the virtual relay device solution.
    I once experimentally implemented an ALSA-OSS virtual kernel driver.
    But, it just gives more complexity.

    Yes, the library solution has merits and demerits. The library should
    have been differently designed. But, I don't think the virtual relay
    is the best solution just because you can use a bare kernel

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-25 15:01    [W:0.020 / U:7.528 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site