From: Michael R. <mr...@us...> - 2003-11-15 17:37:43
|
Hi Thibaut, > > (or, speaking in some more movie titles: master and commander ;) ) [...] > name it like you want ;-) Slave is still the name, the above was a joke. > > * Should the slave have the same metronom_t interface or should it > > have a new, more limited slave_metronom_t interface, only > > providing the got_* functions? > > (I think it should, as Thibaut initally suggested, have the same > > metronom_t interface to hide the details from the metronom > > clients.) > > i still suggest to have the same interface. > > > * Should the functions a slave should not use be dummies? > > (That is: discontinuity handling is not used by slaves.) > > good idea. > > > * When reading vpts_offset from the master, shall we lock the > > master? (I think so, since reading an int64_t is not necessarily > > atomic.) > > ok > > > * Should slaves be allowed to set their own options (like > > av_offset) or should these be passed on to and copied from the > > master as well? (I think the latter is more useful. This way, the > > av_offset of the master would also apply to the viz plugins.) > > i prefer to have the options copied from the master. So we agree in all points. :) I will commit it tomorrow morning. Michael -- printk("Entering UltraSMPenguin Mode...\n"); 2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/arch/sparc64/kernel/smp.c |