Yep, having had a walk over this: if we didn't want to have this behaviour, we'd need to have some buffer_writer specific done_policy or so, where we tell the block it should shut down based on whether all or just any one of its buffer readers signaled WORK_DONE. We don't have that, so this is the only way to shut down a graph tree from a non-source block.
On 12.05.2016 14:58, Tom Rondeau wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:13 AM, Marcus Müller > <marcus.muel...@ettus.com <mailto:marcus.muel...@ettus.com>> wrote: > > Yeah, I've been actually scratching my head on whether that is > intentional or not – if we don't have that behaviour, there's no > chance > that a leaf in a non-path tree-shaped flow graph can stop the flow > graph, is there? > > > > Definitely intentional and the way it's worked since the beginning. > > Tom > > > > > On 12.05.2016 12:23, Sylvain Munaut wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > >> I thought so, too, at first, but then tested: > >> > >> Null src +-> Head --> Null sink0 > >> \----------> Null sink1 > >> > >> > >> stops. > >> > >> I think this is the "am done" message bubbling up from head to > src, then > >> src knowing it should be done, then the info "there's no input > coming > >> anymore" bubbling down to sink1. Thoughts? > > I'd classify that as a bug. > > > > I don't think that's the intended behavior. (but I tested too and > > that's indeed what happens, even with non-null sink/source) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Sylvain > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list > Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org <mailto:Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
