On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, at 02:34 PM, Georg Chini wrote: > Hi, > > to get even better latency stability of module-loopback, I am still > working on an alternative > smoother implementation. I am at the point where I have created a set of > functions similar > to the original implementation: > > > /* Create new smoother */ > pa_smoother_2* pa_smoother_2_new(pa_usec_t window, size_t frame_size, > uint32_t rate); > /* Free the smoother */ > void pa_smoother_2_free(pa_smoother_2* s); > /* Reset the smoother */ > void pa_smoother_2_reset(pa_smoother_2 *s); > > /* Add a new data point and re-calculate time conversion factor */ > void pa_smoother_2_put(pa_smoother_2 *s, pa_usec_t time_stamp, int64_t > byte_count); > > /* Calculate the current latency. For a source, the sign must be inverted > */ > int64_t pa_smoother_2_get_delay(pa_smoother_2 *s, pa_usec_t time_stamp, > size_t byte_count); > /* Convert a time interval from sound card time to system time */ > pa_usec_t pa_smoother_2_get(pa_smoother_2 *s, pa_usec_t time_stamp); > /* Convert system time to sound card time */ > pa_usec_t pa_smoother_2_translate(pa_smoother_2 *s, pa_usec_t > time_difference); > > /* Enable USB hack */ > void pa_smoother_2_usb_hack_enable(pa_smoother_2 *s, bool enable, > pa_usec_t offset); > /* Set user time offset */ > void pa_smoother_2_set_time_offset(pa_smoother_2 *s, pa_usec_t offset); > > > My question is how I should integrate this with the current code. I see > two possibilities: > - Replace the old smoother wherever it is used > - Add a parameter to daemon.conf (use-alternative-smoother) so that you > can choose > between the two implementations. > Probably the second option is preferable. What do you think? Any better > idea? Is there a way to characterise/test how the implementations compare? Maybe a compile-time/#ifdef selection is sufficient as a first pass, and then we can figure out how to proceed. I'd imagine we just want one implementation and not have the complexity of maintaining two. -- Arun
