[pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH 2/3] sink: Add some comments about the rewind handling during stream moves.

[Tanu Kaskinen]

On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 00:36 +0300, Maarten Bosmans wrote:
> Warning bikeshed ahead.
> 
> 2011/9/29 Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at digia.com>:
> > ---
> >  src/pulsecore/sink.c |   58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/pulsecore/sink.c b/src/pulsecore/sink.c
> > index a2642b4..53cab32 100644
> > --- a/src/pulsecore/sink.c
> > +++ b/src/pulsecore/sink.c
> > @@ -2403,6 +2403,46 @@ int pa_sink_process_msg(pa_msgobject *o, int code, void *userdata, int64_t offse
> >                 pa_usec_t usec = 0;
> >                 size_t sink_nbytes, total_nbytes;
> >
> > +                /* The old sink probably has some audio from this
> > +                 * stream in its buffer. We want to "take it back" as
> > +                 * much as possible and play it to the new sink. We
> > +                 * don't know at this point how much the old sink can
> > +                 * rewind. We have to pick something, and that
> > +                 * something is the full latency of the old sink here.
> > +                 * So we rewind the stream buffer by the sink latency
> > +                 * amount, which may be more than what we should
> > +                 * rewind. This can result in a chunk of audio being
> > +                 * played both to the old sink and the new sink.
> 
> I'd say that these comments can be a bit wider. Coding Style says
> about 127 chars. That would be a bit much for a comment block IMHO,
> but it would be good to conserve some vertical space here.

I'm not against making the comments wider. What width would you be happy
with? 100? I propose that something like the following is added to the
CodingStyle document so that there won't be any bikeshedding in the
future regarding this issue:

"The recommended maximum line length of 128 is a bit much for comments.
Comments should be wrapped at X characters. If you prefer, comments with
only few lines can also use shorter line length, but in order to
conserve vertical space, very long comments should always be wrapped at
X characters."

The latter sentence is there, because I think it reflects the current
practice, but it would be ok to me if the second sentence would be
dropped, and the recommendation would be to always wrap at X characters.

What do others think? Is 100 the best number? Or 80? Or 89?

-- 
Tanu