On 04/10/2013 02:07 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 08:50 +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
On 04/08/2013 06:27 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 11:59 +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
I also have some reservations about using goto to backwards in a complex
function. I'm not sure, however, that using a proper loop structure
would make the code any more readable. Splitting the function into
smaller functions is something to consider, but I'm not demanding that
if you don't think it's a good idea.
For the record, I've pushed the write patch to both branches now.
I'm having second thoughts about the read patch. Perhaps it's better to
introduce an extra layer of buffering instead? E g, pa_iochannel_read
would then never call pa_read with anything less than, say, 256 bytes.
(For big reads, there would still be no memory copy.)
Reading always at least 256 bytes at a time sounds like a good idea, but
I don't immediately see how it would work in practice. Just adding some
buffering in the iochannel doesn't help much. It may save a read()
syscall (if libc doesn't already do some extra buffering), but if
do_read() isn't modified in any way, the extra ppoll() call will still
be there.
Right, do_pstream_read_write would then have a
while iochannel_is_readable()
do_read();
...and the readable flag is not cleared as long as there is something in
the intermediate buffer.
--
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
https://launchpad.net/~diwic
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
