[LAU] Jack 1 vs. 2

Filipe Coelho falktx at falktx.com
Fri Feb 5 11:54:23 CET 2021

On 05/02/21 10:41, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> The essential changes also exposed a lot of very inefficient
> algorithms. For example, if you make a new connection between
> two clients that are already connected then there is no need
> to recompute the running order, but it was done anyway just
> because the existing logic required it. It doesn't matter if
> you have just a few clients with a few ports. But this doesn't
> scale well to bigger systems. So I decided to fix that at the
> same time. That's probably why the patch was rejected.

The patch was rejected because it contained superfluous whitespace 
changes, code style changes that did no changes to the actual code and 
other things typical of a "here is a big patch which I didnt bother 
cleanup" dump of a diff.

Paul Davis went to the trouble of converting the *entire* jack1 codebase 
with an automated code styling tool (so all the code would have the same 
rules on coding style) just so we could have your patch in the codebase.
Idea of the process being:
1. convert entire jack1 code to a specific style [1]
2. apply your (unclean) patch in a different jack1 copy and convert that 
entire codebase too
3. make a diff out of the 2 to have a clean patch [2]

It turns out the end result did not work well, so it had to be reverted [3]

There would have been no issues if the patch was properly made from the 
Paul went to the extra effort of cleaning up the entire codebase just to 
accept the patch from you, but somehow that didnt work (why exactly I 
dont know).


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list