Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH 02/21 v2] loopback: Initialize latency at startup and during source/sink changes

2017-02-23 Thread Georg Chini
On 23.02.2017 12:17, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 17:15 +0100, Georg Chini wrote: The current code does not make any attempt to initialize the end-to-end latency to a value near the desired latency. This leads to underruns at startup because the memblockq is initially empty and to

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH 02/21 v2] loopback: Initialize latency at startup and during source/sink changes

2017-02-23 Thread Georg Chini
On 23.02.2017 12:17, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 17:15 +0100, Georg Chini wrote: The current code does not make any attempt to initialize the end-to-end latency to a value near the desired latency. This leads to underruns at startup because the memblockq is initially empty and to

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] problem with webrtc and pulseaudio

2017-02-23 Thread Tanu Kaskinen
On Tue, 2017-02-21 at 19:39 -0300, Fatima Castiglione Maldonado 发 wrote: > Done. > I have run both browsers and, while doing each audio test, executed pactl > list. Output is attached for both test instances. Chrome and firefox use the same latency configuration and the same sample rate, so neithe

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH 02/21 v2] loopback: Initialize latency at startup and during source/sink changes

2017-02-23 Thread Tanu Kaskinen
On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 17:15 +0100, Georg Chini wrote: > The current code does not make any attempt to initialize the end-to-end > latency > to a value near the desired latency. This leads to underruns at startup > because > the memblockq is initially empty and to very long adjustment times for lo