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

Anssi Hannula anssi.hannula at gmail.com
Thu Aug 18 16:13:55 CEST 2005

Thomas Bergwinkl wrote:
> Hi,
> 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.
>>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
>>couldn't distract
>>the output of primary device?
>>Patch attached.
> 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.

Oh, I just assumed VDR takes that into account. If not, then of course 
it either has to be implemented or the patch not applied.
I have 3 DVB-T cards in my system, so I can use the patch anyway.

Anssi Hannula

More information about the vdr mailing list