On 8 Nov 2001, Josh Green wrote:
> On Thu, 2001-11-08 at 01:52, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Maarten de Boer wrote:
> >
> > > Paul Davis wrote:
> > > > Ah, OK. yes, i suppose this might not be clear.
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > But you made it completely clear now! Thank you very
On Thu, 2001-11-08 at 01:52, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Maarten de Boer wrote:
>
> > Paul Davis wrote:
> > > Ah, OK. yes, i suppose this might not be clear.
> > > [...]
> >
> > But you made it completely clear now! Thank you very much, Paul.
> >
> > Paul Davis wrote also:
> > >
>I don't agree with Paul that the latency.c test program is not a good
>example for testing and showing the capture -> process -> play circle
>required by some applications.
applications that do this will need to be multithreaded if they have
any UI at all (i.e. anything involving real-time cont
> if you call poll(2) on the file descriptors returned by
> snd_pcm_poll_descriptors() (and there may be more than one for some
> kinds of PCM "devices"), then what you're actually doing is this:
Hmm, isn't this _exactly_ what the latency test does in poll mode?
(using snd_pcm_wait, which does po
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Maarten de Boer wrote:
> Paul Davis wrote:
> > Ah, OK. yes, i suppose this might not be clear.
> > [...]
>
> But you made it completely clear now! Thank you very much, Paul.
>
> Paul Davis wrote also:
> > but its basically fairly easy to get this performance out of
> > any pro
Paul Davis wrote:
> Ah, OK. yes, i suppose this might not be clear.
> [...]
But you made it completely clear now! Thank you very much, Paul.
Paul Davis wrote also:
> but its basically fairly easy to get this performance out of
> any program that is engineered properly. latency.c is not the
> cor
I wrote:
> I don't think so, but I am probably completely missing the point.
> Let's start all over. I have a patched kernel, and I want to have
> low latency. I use latest alsa (cvs), and I run the latency test.
> (As you might have noticed, I submitted an filtersweep effect for
> the latency tes
On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 11:40:30 -0500
Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I run the alsa-lib/test/latency.c test in poll mode,
> >but the problem is the tick time, which is at 100 Hz:
> >
> >snd_pcm_hw_params_get_tick_time(params, NULL) = 1
> >
> >What am I doing wrong?
>
> using poll mode
Abramo Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This would not imply a "major" rewrite: the API and the kernel code has
> been thought for that.
> You need simply to have different snd_pcm_tick_set functions (see
> pcm_lib.c).
That's interesting. So you think that that would be the prefered way
to d
