30 Nov
2003
30 Nov
'03
12:04 a.m.
Roger Larsson <roger.larsson(a)norran.net> writes:
No. It's rather difficult to prove. There's no "smoking gun".
But, I have no reason to believe that it works correctly, and I
suspect that it probably does not.
I don't see why this is a problem. All this has to happen for every
cycle, anyway. What difference does it make? And, why do you think we
don't understand this?
--
joq
That's
right. But, Paul and I have been working closely with this and
don't have much faith in the correctness of the 2.4 scheduler.
Have you told kernel developers about this?
This can be rather critical in embedded systems. What problem
does this solve?
It will better match what you think you do.
When jackd writes in the FIFO - expect client to start.
Jackd waits for baton - wait for client to finish.
But with jackd as highest priority:
Jackd writes to FIFO - nothing will happen for client.
Jackd _waits_ for baton - now client start, processes, finishes.