Dan Muresan wrote: > Certainly not unique. My guess is that nobody worried about a > (possibly small) performance penalty, and instead used simpler > strategies -- or they weren't using sndfile in the first place. > > Consider this: for any request size you choose, NOT cancelling could > double your latency in the worst case if you're streaming from a slow > NFS server.
Err, if you're worried about latency, why are you streaming from a slow NFS server? > This begs a question -- is it possible to "reset" the SNDFILE less > dramatically? E.g. would a seek back to offset 0, or a pair of seeks, > or some other trick also reset the data structures? Really not sure. You should try it and report back. > If not, it might > be nice to add a sf_reset() function or a SF_RESET sf_command() > parameter. What problem does that fix? Do you even know if there is a problem? Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
