On 25 February 2015 at 11:20, Alexander E. Patrakov <patrakov at gmail.com> wrote: > 25.02.2015 07:25, Arun Raghavan wrote: >> >> The falce branch would only be called when recv_counter > >> send_counter, so you'd never actually have the zero case. AIUI, this >> all just accounting for any "in-flight" rewinds being propagated from >> the sink-input to the source-output. > > > OK, this busts the continuity argument, but, as you essentially repeat it > below, let's start from that instead. > >> Also, overwriting the value as you do loses the latency values that >> were added in previous lines. > > > No! Look at the first argument of PA_CLIP_SUB. Before the patch, the > contribution from the previous lines was double-counted, unless I am missing > something. D'oh! Pushed, thanks. -- Arun
