17 Oct
2008
17 Oct
'08
3:45 p.m.
Paul Coccoli wrote:
Indeed, from what I read, PowerPC might need them. Could anyone run these tests
on a PowerPC, ideally SMP?
Btw, do you think there's a need to write more elaborated tests, something like
writing/reading data chunks of random sizes for example ?
--
Olivier Guilyardi / Samalyse
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Olivier Guilyardi
<ml(a)xung.org> wrote:
No that's right, you just stepped forward ;)
Paul Coccoli wrote:
Looks like I don't have to "step back" or "read the whole thread for
links to relevant documents" then ;)
rb->read_ptr += n1;
rb->read_ptr &= rb->size_mask;
Looks like a problem to me. What happens if there's a context switch
in between those 2 statements?
Well, it looks like you had a fast but great insight here. I've turned all
statements of this kind into one-liners, and the jack ringbuffer now
(apparently) passes the test. Here's the
patch against jack1 r3007:
http://svn.samalyse.com/misc/rbtest/patches/jack-r3007-rb-fix.diff
And thanks everyone for the tests ! I've updated the test suite, it now contains
an additional test with this patch. Please continue testing :)
I didn't test your patch, but my own patch (which is the same thing)
works on dual Core2 duo system, whereas the original didn't.
No memory barriers needed *on x86* (volatile isn't needed anywhere).
Others system probably need memory barriers.