On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 16:51 +0200, David Henningsson wrote: > I don't know if it matters a lot, but most certainly it must be > the new channel that's supposed to be made low-delay, not the existing > listening socket, right? > > Signed-off-by: David Henningsson <david.henningsson at canonical.com> > --- > src/pulsecore/socket-server.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/pulsecore/socket-server.c b/src/pulsecore/socket-server.c > index 0b0b2a5..74db9e3 100644 > --- a/src/pulsecore/socket-server.c > +++ b/src/pulsecore/socket-server.c > @@ -133,9 +133,9 @@ static void callback(pa_mainloop_api *mainloop, pa_io_event *e, int fd, pa_io_ev > > /* There should be a check for socket type here */ > if (s->type == SOCKET_SERVER_IPV4) > - pa_make_tcp_socket_low_delay(fd); > + pa_make_tcp_socket_low_delay(nfd); > else > - pa_make_socket_low_delay(fd); > + pa_make_socket_low_delay(nfd); > > pa_assert_se(io = pa_iochannel_new(s->mainloop, nfd, nfd)); > s->on_connection(s, io, s->userdata); Ack. -- Tanu
