On Mon, 2017-04-17 at 21:37 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
> @@ -327,11 +335,20 @@ static void adjust_rates(struct userdata *u) {
> }
>
> /* Allow one underrun per hour */
> - if (u->iteration_counter * u->adjust_time / PA_USEC_PER_SEC / 3600 >
> run_hours) {
> + if (u->iteration_counter * u->real_adjust_time / PA_USEC_PER_SEC / 3600
> > run_hours) {
> u->underrun_counter = PA_CLIP_SUB(u->underrun_counter, 1u);
> pa_log_info("Underrun counter: %u", u->underrun_counter);
> }
>
> + /* Calculate real adjust time */
> + now = pa_rtclock_now();
> + if (!u->source_sink_changed) {
> + u->adjust_counter++;
> + u->real_adjust_time_sum += now - u->adjust_time_stamp;
> + u->real_adjust_time = u->real_adjust_time_sum / u->adjust_counter;
> + }
> + u->adjust_time_stamp = now;
> +
> /* Rates and latencies*/
> old_rate = u->sink_input->sample_spec.rate;
> base_rate = u->source_output->sample_spec.rate;
> @@ -364,7 +381,9 @@ static void adjust_rates(struct userdata *u) {
> pa_log_debug("Loopback latency at base rate is %0.2f ms",
> (double)latency_at_optimum_rate / PA_USEC_PER_MSEC);
>
> /* Calculate new rate */
> - new_rate = rate_controller(base_rate, u->adjust_time,
> latency_difference);
> + new_rate = rate_controller(base_rate, u->real_adjust_time,
> latency_difference);
> +
> + u->source_sink_changed = false;
This "source_sink_changed = false" assignment would be better right
after the code that checks its value, at least based on this patch
alone. But maybe later patches use this variable too in a way that
makes this suggestion less good?
Otherwise looks fine.
--
Tanu
https://www.patreon.com/tanuk
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
pulseaudio-discuss@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
