10 Dec
2015
10 Dec
'15
5:39 p.m.
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 06:51:48 -0800 (PST)
Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015, Will J Godfrey wrote:
I'm doing this. My main concern was whether the pointers would be updated in
byte steps or block size steps, and what implications that might have.
I'm quite prepared to believe I might be over-thinking the problem. This has
been known before :)
--
It wasn't me! (Well actually, it probably was)
... the hard part is not dodging what life throws at you,
but trying to catch the good bits.
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:07:25 -0500
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
You can check if there are 4 bytes available, if not don't read (yet).
Normally (at least for anything I have done) the reason I use the ring
buffer is to divorce the data processing from any real time requirement.
So I am reading the ring buffer in a loop, I can check how many bytes are
available. jack_ringbuffer_read_space(buffer) can be used I think. On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Will Godfrey
<willgodfrey(a)musically.me.uk>
wrote:
Somehow I expected that would be the answer :(
So, if I get, (say) three bytes processed, presumably I make another call for
just one. If I have a buffer size of 256 and always use a 4
byte data block, can I be
confident that reads and writes will either transfer the correct number
of bytes or none at all?
You cannot.