Disable pacer disabling.

Disable pacer disabling.

Since the pacer is always enabled, removing enable/disable which makes
all packet queueing succeed. Also renaming one of the ::SendPackets
::InsertPacket to avoid confusion.

BUG=webrtc:1695, webrtc:2629
R=stefan@webrtc.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/e23e737177cf5d131a6d4a4d229aa513c5270a59
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#10211}

[pbos-webrtc, 2015-10-06 14:11:08]

P-to-the-TAL.

[pbos-webrtc, 2015-10-06 14:11:14]

The CQ bit was checked by pbos@webrtc.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-06 14:11:21]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1392513002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1392513002/1

[stefan-webrtc, 2015-10-06 14:32:33]

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1392513002/diff/1/webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/sourc...
File webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/source/rtp_sender.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1392513002/diff/1/webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/sourc...
webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/source/rtp_sender.cc:1038: if (paced_sender_ && storage
!= kDontStore) {
It worries me a bit that we allow some packets to not go through the pacer even
if it's there.

Looking into this, it appears to only be FIR over RTP that has kDontStore set. I
suggest we remove that value and at the same time remove FIR over RTP, which we
never enable in the new API.

I think this is safe since this is a very old an deprecated way of sending FIRs,
which is only actually defined for H.261: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2032

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1392513002/diff/1/webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/sourc...
File webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/source/rtp_sender_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1392513002/diff/1/webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/sourc...
webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/source/rtp_sender_unittest.cc:133: void SetUpWithPacer()
{ SetUpRtpSender(true); }
A nicer way would be to inherit from RtpSenderTest and have a
RtpSenderWithoutPacerTest. WDYT?

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-06 14:55:21]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-06 14:55:22]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[pbos-webrtc, 2015-10-06 14:58:20]

Remove RTP FIR + test refactoring

[pbos-webrtc, 2015-10-06 14:58:26]

P-to-the-TAL.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1392513002/diff/1/webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/sourc...
File webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/source/rtp_sender.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1392513002/diff/1/webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/sourc...
webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/source/rtp_sender.cc:1038: if (paced_sender_ && storage
!= kDontStore) {
On 2015/10/06 14:32:33, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> It worries me a bit that we allow some packets to not go through the pacer
even
> if it's there.
> 
> Looking into this, it appears to only be FIR over RTP that has kDontStore set.
I
> suggest we remove that value and at the same time remove FIR over RTP, which
we
> never enable in the new API.
> 
> I think this is safe since this is a very old an deprecated way of sending
FIRs,
> which is only actually defined for H.261: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2032

Done.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1392513002/diff/1/webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/sourc...
File webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/source/rtp_sender_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1392513002/diff/1/webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/sourc...
webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/source/rtp_sender_unittest.cc:133: void SetUpWithPacer()
{ SetUpRtpSender(true); }
On 2015/10/06 14:32:33, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> A nicer way would be to inherit from RtpSenderTest and have a
> RtpSenderWithoutPacerTest. WDYT?

Done.

[stefan-webrtc, 2015-10-08 06:57:31]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-08 09:44:34]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/e23e737177cf5d131a6d4a4d229aa513c5270a59
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#10211}

[pbos-webrtc, 2015-10-08 09:44:34]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) manually as
e23e737177cf5d131a6d4a4d229aa513c5270a59 (presubmit successful).