linuxaudio.org

Paul Coccoli wrote:

quoted text
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Olivier Guilyardi  wrote:

>> Paul Coccoli wrote:

>>>

>>> rb->read_ptr += n1;

>>> rb->read_ptr &= rb->size_mask;

>>>

>>> Looks like a problem to me.  What happens if there's a context switch

>>> in between those 2 statements?

>>>

>> Well, it looks like you had a fast but great insight here. I've turned all

>> statements of this kind into one-liners, and the jack ringbuffer now

>> (apparently) passes the test.

>

> Looks like I don't have to "step back" or "read the whole thread for

> links to relevant documents" then ;)

No that's right, you just stepped forward ;)
>> Here's the patch against jack1 r3007:

quoted text
>> http://svn.samalyse.com/misc/rbtest/patches/jack-r3007-rb-fix.diff

>>

>> And thanks everyone for the tests ! I've updated the test suite, it now contains

>> an additional test with this patch. Please continue testing :)

>>

>

> I didn't test your patch, but my own patch (which is the same thing)

> works on dual Core2 duo system, whereas the original didn't.

>

> No memory barriers needed *on x86* (volatile isn't needed anywhere).

> Others system probably need memory barriers.

Indeed, from what I read, PowerPC might need them. Could anyone run these tests

on a PowerPC, ideally SMP?
Btw, do you think there's a need to write more elaborated tests, something like

writing/reading data chunks of random sizes for example ?
--

  Olivier Guilyardi / Samalyse

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-user mailing list

Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user