Paul Coccoli wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Olivier Guilyardi <ml@xxxxxxxx> 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: >> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
