On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:10:55PM +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:04:37PM +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > > > 2. client3 loopbacks to itself and then it all applies as "the bug". > > question is: is it jack's bug? maybe not. the other half/part of the > > problem still aplies, as it depends on the client3's process code > > flow--which buffer port is read/written first? ins or outs? and in what > > order? hmm... > > If one signal (the looped back one) cas disappears because you > disconnect _another_ one, I'd call that a bug. 100%. > > Note that fixing this does not imply you can't get your own > undelayed output anymore. That just depends on the order of > your computations and jack_port_get_buffer() calls.
but we would eliminate a lot of zero-copy codepaths inside a client like ardour. (note that ardour has quite a lot of ports connected to itself) both behaviours have their use-cases. if this behaviour is not clearly documented, it is a bug. but i dont want to fix a very small set of use-cases, (which could be fixed in the clients also) and trade this fix for, what seems to be, a quite significant performance regression. i would also be happy if we added a flag to keep the old zero copy behaviour... then we can change the default. > > Ciao, > > -- > FA > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev -- torben Hohn _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
