From alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz  Thu Jan 14 01:23:30 1999
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [209.152.193.4])
	by marvin.jcu.cz (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA13520
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 01:23:26 +0100
Received: from someip.ppp.op.net (d-bm3-1a.ppp.op.net [209.152.194.90]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.18 $) with ESMTP id TAA18702 for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:23:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199901140023.TAA18702@renoir.op.net>
To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Subject: Re: Linux scheduler issues. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:24:16 +0100."
             <005601be3ed9$dbefbe20$47010180@pcbg> 
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:24:21 -0500
From: Paul Barton-Davis <pbd@op.net>
Reply-To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Sender: alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz
Precedence: list

In message <005601be3ed9$dbefbe20$47010180@pcbg>you write:
>:As I say, that may just be realistic. But it would be *nice*, even if
>:not realistic, to think that I could run an efficient, non-GUI hard
>:disk recording application and a CPU-intensive realtime synth/audio
>:app like Quasimodo (or RTsynth or KDEsynth or whatever) and have the
>:right thing happen without both programs knowing about the other. At
>:the moment, thats hard to be sure of.
>:
>
>
>Well... multi process means sync between them (I don't mean semaphores and
>the like but audio sync)

Not really. There's no reason that a hard disk recorder should need to
know *anything* about a real-time synth engine running on the same machine.
Or is there ?

--p

