Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Problems and Solutions: events v. signals
From: David Olofson (audiality_AT_swipnet.se)
Date: to tammi 13 2000 - 01:33:58 EST
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, David Olofson wrote:
> struct event_t {
> event_t *next;
> int time; /* Time stamp */
> short channel; /* Channel index */
> void *data; /* New data pointer */
> };
[...]
> I just don't see how this could make enough difference to justify the
> performance hit on the Advanced Signal Events (that will have to be
> used quite a lot anyway, I'm afraid...), and the extra complexity
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Second thought (I've been there before): Is this really true, if the
default data format is signals?
Probably depends a lot on what kind of plugins we're dealing with,
but some statistics would be nice. However, I still see strong
reasons for not going the signals only way, and if we use events,
it's all about finding out the fastest way to handle them. As this
is pretty efficient with the current design, it probably doesn't
make much sense to try and divide them into "fast event" and "slow
events"...
Hmm... Why does it sound too simple all of a sudden? What am I
forgetting? ;-)
//David
.- M u C o S -------------------. .- A u d i a l i t y ----------------.
| A Free/Open Multimedia | | Rock Solid, Hard Real Time, |
| Plugin & Integration Standard | | Low Latency Signal Processing |
`------> www.linuxdj.com/mucos -' `--> www.angelfire.com/or/audiality -'
.- D a v i d O l o f s o n ------------------------------------------.
| Audio Hacker, Linux Advocate, Open Source Advocate, Singer/Composer |
`----------------------------------------------> audiality_AT_swipnet.se -'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:23:26 EST