[vdr] [PATCH] Priority of transfer-mode should not be -1

Thomas Bergwinkl Bergwinkl.Thomas at vr-web.de
Sat Sep 10 17:40:52 CEST 2005


Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> Thomas Bergwinkl wrote:
> > Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> >
> >>Anssi Hannula wrote:
> >>
> >>>Klaus Schmidinger 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
> >>>>>>device available.
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>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.
> >>>>
> >>>>Comments?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>How exactly would that resolve the situation I described above?
> >>
> >>Well, it wouldn't. Apparently I overread that this was a
> >>streamdev issue.
> >>But then again, it's of course the same problem if you are in
> >>Transfer-Mode
> >>and a recording starts and selects the receiver device, even
> >>though an other
> >>device would be free.
> >>
> >>I'll think over this again...
> >
> >
> > What do you think about the attached patch?
> >
> > Thomas
> 
> @Anssi: have you had a chance to test this patch yet?

Meanwhile I realised that in cDevice::SetChannel GetDevice is called with
priority 0. So the 'Priority >= 0' in the patch is always true (and
therefore could be replaced be 'true') . This will lead to a 'sideeffect' if
more than one device is able to provide this channel: When zapping through
the channels always the other device will be choosen. Another effect with
this patch is, that when a recording on the same transponder starts, which
currently is received via transfermode, then the receiving device will be
prefered for the recording be GetDevice().
So I am not really happy with this patch anymore and think a better solution
is neccessary.

Thomas
 






More information about the vdr mailing list