Removing the -T option from virtual_oss?

[Christos Margiolis]

I was wondering about the use of the -T option in virtual_oss. For one,
what the argument -T expects, is always going to be /dev/sndstat, so I
find that to be quite redundant in the first place. Also, is there a
case where we wouldn't want the device to be registered to sndstat?

Attached is a patch based on the upstream [1]. I think it is more
sensible to register the device to sndstat unconditionally.

Only problem with this is backwards compatibility. I suppose if we want
to not break things, we could alternatively make the -T option a no-op.
What do you think?

Christos

[1] https://github.com/freebsd/virtual_oss

[Goran Mekić]

Post by Christos Margiolis
I was wondering about the use of the -T option in virtual_oss. For one,
what the argument -T expects, is always going to be /dev/sndstat, so I
find that to be quite redundant in the first place. Also, is there a
case where we wouldn't want the device to be registered to sndstat?
Attached is a patch based on the upstream [1]. I think it is more
sensible to register the device to sndstat unconditionally.
Only problem with this is backwards compatibility. I suppose if we want
to not break things, we could alternatively make the -T option a no-op.
What do you think?
Christos
[1] https://github.com/freebsd/virtual_oss

Hello,

I'm using virtual_oss for years and I never understood why would anyone
want to not register the device. I can't see any drawback in registering
the device unconditionally.

Regards,
meka



--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-***@muc.de