hi all,
i'm considering to add lock free queue support to packet forth, just to
follow the hype, and maybe also because i like the concept. but i'm
wondering if it would make much sense to go through all the trouble with
fast mutexes being available in 2.6
in other words, how much better (apart
Tom Schouten wrote:
hi all,
i'm considering to add lock free queue support to packet forth, just to
follow the hype, and maybe also because i like the concept. but i'm
wondering if it would make much sense to go through all the trouble with
fast mutexes being available in 2.6
in other words, how
On ons, 2004-08-25 at 17:06, ChristianH wrote:
Why is it so important to load the firmware?
Do they put in an extra light firmware at the factory, in order to keep
shipping weights low? gr
They report themselves to be a general device instead of the widely
understood notion of a midi
martin rumori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:06:53PM +0200, ChristianH wrote:
Why is it so important to load the firmware?
Do they put in an extra light firmware at the factory, in order to keep
shipping weights low? gr
to keep shipping weights rather low, they put
in other words, how much better (apart from being more elegant) are lock
free structures wrt a mutex approach where there is a minimal system
penalty? (not many collisions) did anyone look into this? or have i not
been lurking properly? ;)
OK, futexes are fast in the uncontested case so,
Hallo,
Daniel Wagner hat gesagt: // Daniel Wagner wrote:
I'm pleased to announce a project which eventually should support
several Firewire-based breakout-boxes. Following boxes would be
supported:
Very, very cool!!! You really should get in contact with the ALSA
guys. See
Very, very cool!!! You really should get in contact with the ALSA
guys. See www.alsa-project.org
I have already posted a message there couple of weeks ago.
daniel
On Wednesday 25 August 2004 03:50 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug, 2004 at 03:13PM -0400, John Check spake thus:
On Wednesday 25 August 2004 02:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug, 2004 at 01:48PM -0400, John Check spake thus:
snip multiple levels of replies
Hallo,
Daniel Wagner hat gesagt: // Daniel Wagner wrote:
Very, very cool!!! You really should get in contact with the ALSA
guys. See www.alsa-project.org
I have already posted a message there couple of weeks ago.
Uhm, sorry, I must have missed that and was only looking at the CC of
this
1)Does anyone know what format digital audio is stored in for miniDVs?
I know the audio can be 12 or 16 bit and I know that (at least for the
tapes I have) SP is about 60 minutes and LP is about 90 minutes. So, I
figure the sample rates are probably something like 48kHz for SP and
32KHz for LP,
On Friday 27 August 2004 00:08, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
3)Does it matter what ieee1394 interface I get, or are they all
basically the same as long as there's kernel support for them?
This was indeed discused recently: It doesn't matter at all since firewire is
far from being supported by
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Arnold Krille wrote:
On Friday 27 August 2004 00:08, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
3)Does it matter what ieee1394 interface I get, or are they all
basically the same as long as there's kernel support for them?
This was indeed discused recently: It doesn't matter at all
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Arnold Krille wrote:
On Friday 27 August 2004 00:08, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
3)Does it matter what ieee1394 interface I get, or are they all
basically the same as long as there's kernel support for them?
This was indeed discused recently: It doesn't matter at all
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
1)Does anyone know what format digital audio is stored in for miniDVs?
I know the audio can be 12 or 16 bit and I know that (at least for the
tapes I have) SP is about 60 minutes and LP is about 90 minutes. So, I
figure the sample rates are
Tom Schouten wrote:
in other words, how much better (apart from being more elegant) are lock
free structures wrt a mutex approach where there is a minimal system
penalty? (not many collisions) did anyone look into this? or have i not
been lurking properly? ;)
OK, futexes are fast in the
Arnold Krille wrote:
On Friday 27 August 2004 00:08, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
3)Does it matter what ieee1394 interface I get, or are they all
basically the same as long as there's kernel support for them?
This was indeed discused recently: It doesn't matter at all since firewire is
far from
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 18:30, Daniel Wagner wrote:
Hi,
I'm pleased to announce a project which eventually should support
several Firewire-based breakout-boxes. Following boxes would be
supported:
- ESI QuataFire 610
- M-Audio Firewire Audiophile
- M-Audio Firewire 410
- M-Audio
17 matches
Mail list logo
