[vdr] Re: vdr-1.3.13 with NTPL

[Alexw <alexw@undercover.mine.nu>]

Hi there,

I confirm that NTPL is running fine. I was using VDR v1.3.12 with NTPL for 
weeks without any issue. Now I am running v1.3.13 with the same patch since 
the new version was released and the behavior of the system is normal. FYI I 
tried with kernel version 2.6.9-rc1, 2.6.9 and 2.6.9 + linuxtv latest cvs on 
a TT-FF and a budget-ci.

Alex

On Thursday 21 October 2004 11:08, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> Alfred Zastrow wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > since I don't have NTPL-less systems anymore, I'm forced to run vdr with
> > NTPL.
> >
> > My vdr-build-system in short:
> >
> > linux-2.6.8.1
> > glibc-2.3.4-20040701 (tarball is from Linuxfromscratch)
> > gcc-3.4.2
> > binutils-2.15
> >
> > With the folloing two changes above (commenting out the NTPL-exit in
> > vdr.c and the usleep in dvb-player.c) vdr runs flawless with NTPL.
> > Also jumping between cutting marks appears normal.
> > Right now I'm not able to meassure the cpu-load, but in my case
> > (dedicated system) this is not an issue.
> >
> > --- vdr.orig.c  Sun Oct 17 13:50:21 2004
> > +++ vdr.c       Wed Oct 20 21:40:39 2004
> > @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@
> >     if (confstr(_CS_GNU_LIBPTHREAD_VERSION, LibPthreadVersion,
> > sizeof(LibPthreadVersion)) > 0) {
> >        if (strstr(LibPthreadVersion, "NPTL")) {
> >           fprintf(stderr, "vdr: please turn off NPTL by setting 'export
> > LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1' before starting VDR\n");
> > -        return 2;
> > +//        return 2;
> >           }
> >        }
> >   #endif
> >
> > --- dvbplayer.orig.c    Fri Oct 15 15:07:55 2004
> > +++ dvbplayer.c Thu Oct 21 08:11:28 2004
> > @@ -490,8 +490,8 @@
> >                       break;
> >                       }
> >                    }
> > -              else//XXX
> > -                 usleep(1); // this keeps the CPU load low
> > +//              else//XXX
> > +//                 usleep(1); // this keeps the CPU load low
> >                 }
> >
> >              // Store the frame in the buffer:
> >
> > regards
> > Alfred
>
> Great!
>
> I'll take it from here and will see what can be done (if at all necessary)
> to keep the CPU load low without that usleep().
>
> So, if this actually fixes all NPTL trouble, I guess it would be ok to
> remove the NPTL check altogether. Can others please check whether they can
> confirm Alfred's findings?
>
> Klaus