linuxaudio.org

--e89a8fb1ec66d1452904ba1e7564

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Thanks for all the comments everyone!

iain
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Paul Coccoli  wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM, James Morris  wrote:

quoted text
> > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:01:18 -0500

> > Paul Coccoli  wrote:

> [Mass snippage]

> >> Why not just use 2 ringbuffers: one to send pointers to the RT thread,

> >> and a second to send them back to the low prio thread (so it can free

> >> them).  You probably need a semaphore for the return ringbuffer, but

> >> that should be RT-safe.

> >

> > That's what I thought... would be better for someone who is new to real

> > time threads and memory allocation... and is what I decided on... minus

> > the semaphore.

> >

> > So why is a semaphore needed? If the RT thread only sends an item back

> > when it absolutely no longer will use it?

>

> I suppose the semaphore isn't strictly necessary, but I think it's an

> easy way to tell the main thread that it has a message to process.

> Although one that probably doesn't integrate well with most

> main/non-RT threads.

> _______________________________________________

> Linux-audio-dev mailing list

> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

>

--e89a8fb1ec66d1452904ba1e7564

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for all the comments everyone!iainOn Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Paul Coccoli <<=

a href=3D"mailto:pcoccoli@gmail.com">pcoccoli@gmail.com> wrot=

e:

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:=

43 PM, James Morris <james@jwm-art.=

net> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:01:18 -0500

quoted text
> Paul Coccoli <pcoccoli@gmail.=

com> wrote:

[Mass snippage]

quoted text
>> Why not just use 2 ringbuffers: one to send poin=

ters to the RT thread,

quoted text
>> and a second to send them back to the low prio thread (so it can f=

ree

quoted text
>> them). =A0You probably need a semaphore for the return ringbuffer,=

 but

quoted text
>> that should be RT-safe.

>

> That's what I thought... would be better for someone who is new to=

 real

quoted text
> time threads and memory allocation... and is what I decided on... minu=

s

quoted text
> the semaphore.

>

> So why is a semaphore needed? If the RT thread only sends an item back=

> when it absolutely no longer will use it?
I suppose the semaphore isn't strictly necessary, but I think it&=

#39;s an

easy way to tell the main thread that it has a message to process.

Although one that probably doesn't integrate well with most

main/non-RT threads.

_________________________________________=

______

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lis=

ts.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
--e89a8fb1ec66d1452904ba1e7564--