Re: [LAD] LV2 realtime safe memory pool extension

2007/11/8, Nedko Arnaudov <nedko@email-addr-hidden>:
> David Olofson <david@email-addr-hidden> writes:
>
> > On Thursday 08 November 2007, Nedko Arnaudov wrote:
> > [...]
> >> There were rumors in #lad that such functionality may be useful
> >> without lv2dynparam extension.
> >
> > Well, yes; real time safe dynamic memory management can make life a
> > lot easier for some types of plugins, and/or reduce memory
> > requirements by having a shared pool. However, I think it needs to be
> > more generic than just a pool of fixed size chunks for the "shared
> > pool" part to be viable.
>
> Point is whether arbitrary and fixed chunk allocators be in one
> extension. I tend to think that they should be separate because
> algorythms behind them are quite different and host may choose to
> implement only one of them. Also most lock free algorithms are patented
> so this can be point of host supporting only one feature set.

I do totally agree.

Stefano D'Angelo
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Nov 9 04:15:02 2007