[vdr] [PATCH] Priority of transfer-mode should not be -1
Klaus.Schmidinger at cadsoft.de
Sat Aug 20 11:30:26 CEST 2005
Thomas Bergwinkl wrote:
> Anssi Hannula wrote:
>>The transfer-mode uses always priority -1.
>>That presents a problem: If I connect to that vdr using streamdev, it
>>switches the first budget device off from the multiplex transfered to
>>the FF card, although there is a second identical budget
>>Also, if I had DVB-S FF and only one DVB-T budget and had a DVB-T
>>recording with priority 10 and Primary Limit at 20, live DVB-T video
>>would (wouldn't it?) be severed.
>>Klaus, shouldn't transfer-mode be also using the Primary
>>Limit value, so
>>that recordings with priority less than Primary Limit
>>the output of primary device?
> I think there is a problem with your patch. There is a reason for the
> priority -1. Imagine you have a channel which can only be received by
> one card and this card is used for transfer-mode. When you want to
> switch to this channel, the transfer-mode has, with your patch, e.g
> priority 0. But the new transfer-mode would have the same priority (but
> not a higher), so there would be no free device (channel not available).
> So when searching for a free device, vdr should consider that the
> device, which is used for transfer-mode, could be free, if transfer-mode
> for the current channel has ended.
Thanks, I didn't think of this when I said I would adopt that change.
Actually, the PrimaryLimit was implemented at a time where the FF DVB
cards were unable to record and replay at the same time. In that case,
when a timer needed to use the primary device, it was no longer possible
to switch to a different channel. These times are long gone, so I would
instead tend to remove the PrimaryLimit altogether. It would make things
simpler instead of more complex ;-)
If somebody has programmed so many timers that all of the DVB cards
are needed to record them, so be it.
More information about the vdr