On Wed, 27 May 2020, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:47:54AM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2020, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:52:45PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 20 May 2020, Marton Balint wrote:
> >
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:47:54AM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 27 May 2020, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:52:45PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 May 2020, Marton Balint wrote:
> > >
> > > > The old resync logic had some
On Wed, 27 May 2020, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:52:45PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2020, Marton Balint wrote:
> The old resync logic had some bugs, for example the packet size could stuck
> into 192 bytes, because pos47_full was not updated
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:52:45PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 20 May 2020, Marton Balint wrote:
>
> > The old resync logic had some bugs, for example the packet size could stuck
> > into 192 bytes, because pos47_full was not updated for every packet, and for
> > unseekable inputs
On Wed, 20 May 2020, Marton Balint wrote:
The old resync logic had some bugs, for example the packet size could stuck
into 192 bytes, because pos47_full was not updated for every packet, and for
unseekable inputs the resync logic simply skipped some 0x47 sync bytes,
therefore the calculated
The old resync logic had some bugs, for example the packet size could stuck
into 192 bytes, because pos47_full was not updated for every packet, and for
unseekable inputs the resync logic simply skipped some 0x47 sync bytes,
therefore the calculated distance between sync bytes was a multiple of