Devin, I perfectly remember your opinion regarding vtuner. 2011/12/3 Devin Heitmueller <dheitmueller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 09:21:23 -0800 >> VDR User <user.vdr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Andreas Oberritter <obi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > You could certainly build a library to reach a different goal. The goal >>> > of vtuner is to access remote tuners with any existing program >>> > implementing the DVB API. >>> >>> So you could finally use VDR as a server/client setup using vtuner, >>> right? With full OSD, timer, etc? Yes, I'm aware that streamdev >>> exists. It was horrible when I tried it last (a long time ago) and I >>> understand it's gotten better. But it's not a suitable replacement for >>> a real server/client setup. It sounds like using vtuner, this would >>> finally be possible and since Klaus has no intention of ever >>> modernizing VDR into server/client (that I'm aware of), it's also the >>> only suitable option as well. >> >> I would expect it to still suck. One of the problems you have with trying >> to pretend things are not networked is that you fake asynchronous events >> synchronously, you can't properly cover error cases and as a result you >> get things like ioctls that hang for two minutes or fail in bogus and >> bizarre ways. If you loop via userspace you've also got to deal with >> deadlocks and all sorts of horrible cornercases like the user space >> daemon dying. >> >> There is a reason properly working client/server code looks different - >> it's not a trivial transformation and faking it kernel side won't be any >> better than faking it in user space - it may well even be a worse fake. >> >> Alan > > This whole notion of creating fake kernel devices to represent > networked tuners feels like a hack. If applications want to access > networked tuners, adding support for RTP/RTSP or incorporating > libhdhomerun (LGPL) is a fairly straightforward exercise. In fact, > many applications already have incorporated support for one of these > two approaches. The fact that app maintainers have been > unwilling/uninterested to do such doesn't feel like it should be an > excuse for hacking this functionality into the kernel. Still the same nonsense - why I should add 10x or even 100 times more code to achieve not the same but may be 80-90% same result? The idea is hell simple = allow to use those remote tuners by 100% of dvb api compliant applications. Not 80%, but 100%. Honza -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
