Colin Guthrie wrote: > tom at dbservice.com wrote: >>> Re the snd_pcm_delay() including network latency (#3945), this clearly >>> makes sense for network streams. Does you proposed fix include this >>> delay (albeit with the improvement that it also will drop to 0 if there >>> are no samples queued)? >> snd_pcm_delay() should not include any network latency. The API is >> defined as 'read pointer - write pointer', and applications expect >> that. Or at least they expect that when all samples are played that >> the delay drops to zero. > > With the caveat of very limited technical knowledge, I can agree on the > latter point (drop to 0 when all samples are played), but if it was > implemented sans net-delay in pulse would this not cause e.g. a-v sync > issues when playing via alsa to a networked PA server? If so then this > fix would introduce another bug. Actually just having a very quick glance at the Alsa API docs, it doesn't mention that this value should be 0 if there are no samples to play: http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/alsa-lib/group___p_c_m.html#ga0d9e14a4be65209eb549e48a9f07302 Closest it says is: "It's positive and less than buffer size in normal situation". So perhaps this is an invalid assumption at the wine side? Is there perhaps a more appropriate API call they can use to do whatever test they are doing? Col
