2011/3/7 Klaus Schmidinger <Klaus.Schmidinger@xxxxxxx>: > On 03/07/11 14:13, Frank Schmirler wrote: >> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:33:47 +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote >>> On 03/07/11 13:23, Frank Schmirler wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 17:15:44 +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote >>>>> The problem is that the VPS code in vdr.c avoids devices that are >>>>> currently recording. And since this is a rather complex area, >>>>> I'm not sure if it's too good an idea to change this ;-) >>>>> >>>>> If you feel like it, you may want to take a look at the code under >>>>> >>>>> // Find a device that provides the required transponder: >>>>> >>>>> in vdr.c. Maybe you can come up with a better solution... >>>> >>>> Unless I've missed something, that code does not only ignore priorities but >>>> also the availability of CAMs. >>> >>> We only need the EIT data here, which is not encrypted. >>> So it's sufficient to find a device that provides the >>> raw transponder. >> >> Ah, I see. I ignored the fact, that at the moment this piece of code is only >> looking for a way to see the VPS start flag for the timer. Still the GetDevice >> call (or something alike) would become necessary when considering to interrupt >> a recording with lower priority. The low priority recording shouldn't be >> interrupted if the VPS recording cannot start later as e.g. the CAM is in use >> by a higher priority recording. > > Looks like this is beginning to become "rocket science" again ;-) It allready is rocket science right now, ignoring the fact doesn't make it go away ;) At least thats my impression. _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
