Am 06.05.2014 00:20, schrieb David Henningsson: > > > On 2014-04-30 07:35, Thomas Martitz wrote: >> Am 29.04.2014 15:22, schrieb David Henningsson: >>> Okay, so second iteration. The patch is no longer a draft, and numbers >>> look good; Peter Meerwald has confirmed my numbers of 15 - 25% less >>> CPU in >>> low latency scenarios (right)? >>> >>> That said, I guess the patches could use more testing, e g corner >>> cases such >>> as what happens if either side suddenly dies, if the ringbuffer gets >>> full etc. >>> >>> Tech overview: >>> >>> The srchannel (Shared Ringbuffer Channel) is made up of two >>> ringbuffers in >>> shared memory. For signaling, we use pa_fdsem. >>> >> >> Hello, >> >> I'm not in the position for technical review but...I can't help it but I >> always read srcchannel and think it has to do with sources. Other >> newcomers might get confused too. Perhaps a less confusing short name >> can be found? > > How about rbchannel (short for RingBufferChannel)? > > Does the prefix have to be two chars max? Otherwise I'd propose shrngchannel (or perhaps just shrchannel). I guess the "shared" aspect is signifcant and shouldn't be dropped, but at the end of the day it's just a name. Best regards
