On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:30:50 +0100 Will Godfrey <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 22:06:32 +0000 > Fons Adriaensen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:53:19PM +0100, Will J Godfrey wrote: > > > > > It's probably not worth the effort, but I wondered if the client could > > > attempt > > > to be a 'good citizen' and take some form of remedial action. > > > > I don't know of any that try to do this. But if a client would > > want to, the most sensible thing to do in most cases would be > > to return silence, i.e. clear the output buffers. A client > > could do this at the first thing in its process() callback. > > > > Ciao, > > > OK, thanks guys. I'll leave it there I think :) Well, actually... This might seem a bit obvious, but am I right in thinking that while jack collects the current inputs it is at the same time pushing out the *previous* bufferful of data - hence latency. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
