On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 08:47 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, at 10:17 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > On Sat, 2017-07-15 at 11:20 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, at 11:46 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > > > The on_the_fly_snapshot variable contains the amount of bytes that has > > > > been sent from the source IO thread to the main thread, but not yet > > > > pushed to the stream memblockq. The data is in the stream format, but > > > > the bytes-to-usec conversion used the source format, which caused random > > > > latency reporting errors. > > > > > > > > BugLink: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81075 > > > > --- > > > > src/pulsecore/protocol-native.c | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/src/pulsecore/protocol-native.c > > > > b/src/pulsecore/protocol-native.c > > > > index 266b676de..d5d032950 100644 > > > > --- a/src/pulsecore/protocol-native.c > > > > +++ b/src/pulsecore/protocol-native.c > > > > @@ -2922,7 +2922,7 @@ static void command_get_record_latency(pa_pdispatch > > > > *pd, uint32_t command, uint3 > > > > pa_tagstruct_put_usec(reply, s->current_monitor_latency); > > > > pa_tagstruct_put_usec(reply, > > > > s->current_source_latency + > > > > - pa_bytes_to_usec(s->on_the_fly_snapshot, > > > > &s->source_output->source->sample_spec)); > > > > + pa_bytes_to_usec(s->on_the_fly_snapshot, > > > > &s->source_output->sample_spec)); > > > > pa_tagstruct_put_boolean(reply, > > > > pa_source_get_state(s->source_output->source) > > > > == PA_SOURCE_RUNNING && > > > > pa_source_output_get_state(s->source_output) > > > > == PA_SOURCE_OUTPUT_RUNNING); > > > > -- > > > > > > Looks good. Let's get this into 11.0, maybe? > > > > Ok, I'll push this to master. Would you like to have also > > > > simple: Change latency estimation to account for already-read data > > in pa_simple_get_latency(). > > > > and > > > > simple: fix negative latency handling > > > > in 11.0? Those improve latency reporting for the simple API. > > I thought about that, and if you're confident there's no chance of > regressing there, maybe a freeze exception is okay. Ok, I pushed those patches now. -- Tanu https://www.patreon.com/tanuk
