4 May
2011
4 May
'11
5:02 p.m.
On 05/04/2011 03:45 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:39:32PM +0100, Rui Nuno
Capela wrote:
there's two situations here:
1. client1 is singly connected to client2 and thus the "zero-copy"
optimization applies and imo it is a blessing and probably not
considered a bug.
2. client3 loopbacks to itself and then it all applies as "the bug".
question is: is it jack's bug? maybe not. the other half/part of the
problem still aplies, as it depends on the client3's process code
flow--which buffer port is read/written first? ins or outs? and in what
order? hmm...
seeya (soon@nui:)
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
alas, i am not that convinced it is a jack bug.
if one, say a jack
client, ever wants to allow a direct loopback, why doesn't he/she do the
appropriate code him/her-self? it's a lousy memcpy() away isn't it?
1. It's a bug because the result depends on the number of
connected outputs. It shouldn't - the input should just be
the sum of everything connected to it.
2. It could be the user who 'wants' the loopback, not the app
itself, and you can't expect apps to check or even count the
signals connected to their inputs.