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

Anssi Hannula anssi.hannula at gmail.com
Sun Sep 11 16:48:26 CEST 2005

Thomas Bergwinkl wrote:
> Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
>>Thomas Bergwinkl wrote:
>>>Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
>>>>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
>>>>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?
>>@Anssi: have you had a chance to test this patch yet?

Oops, sorry I didn't notice this new patch at all. Is this meant to be 
used with or without my initial patch?

> 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.

Hmm, too complicated for me to understand right now...

BTW, with my original patch, the channel switching in DVB-T seems to be 
faster. When switching multiplex, VDR also switches to second device. 
When I switch back to the previous multiplex, I believe the first card 
(which VDR changes back to) is still tuned to that and retuning is not 
necessary. However this same thing is the problem also, as Thomas said, 
because you need always an extra free card for multiplex switching 
(which is not a problem for me, because number of multiplexes = number 
of cards).

Anssi Hannula

More information about the vdr mailing list