On 24.02.2012 15:37, Frank Schmirler wrote:
Hi, On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:54:48 +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote- Fixed handling the PrimaryLimit when requesting a device for live viewing (reported by Uwe Scheffler).Refers to the following change in device.c: - if (device[i]->ProvidesChannel(Channel, Priority,&ndr)) { // this device is basicly able to do the job + if (device[i]->ProvidesChannel(Channel, (LiveView&& device[i]->IsPrimaryDevice()) ? Setup.PrimaryLimit : Priority,&ndr)) { // this device is basicly able to do the job With this modification the GetDevice parameter Priority becomes meaningless in case LiveView is true. This should at least be mentioned in the function's documentation in device.h. Anyway, I think a better way to fix the problem would be to change the priority parameter of the GetDevice calls involved from "GetDevice(channel, 0, true)" to "GetDevice(channel, Setup.PrimaryLimit, true)". There are two calls in device.c and one call in menu.c. Imagine a two card system with PrimaryLimit 20, a high priority recording (e.g. 50) running on the PrimaryDevice and a low priority recording (e.g. 10) on the second card. With 1.7.24 live TV would not interrupt the low priority recording, as PrimaryLimit priority is only used when checking the PrimaryDevice, but priority 0 is used when checking the second card. The way 1.7.24 resolves the problem is not wrong as according to MANUAL PrimaryLimit is not meant to affect transfer mode. IMHO it should, as the intention of this parameter is prefering LiveTV to low priority recordings. I'm still hoping to get a more priority driven device selection.
IIRC that whole "Primary Limit" thing was introduced because in the beginning the full featured DVB cards were unable to record and play at the same time. So it could happen that a timer occupied the primary device and left the user with a black screen. Since the old FF cards have been given the ability to do simultaneous recording and replay a long time ago, and the new TT S2-6400 has been able to do this from the very start, I'd rather prefer to do away with the "Primary Limit" altogether - to make things simpler instead of more complex ;-) So, is there anybody who would *really* miss the "Primary Limit" if it were gone?
BTW: Any update on this related issue: http://www.mail-archive.com/vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx/msg14166.html?
I assume you are referring to http://projects.vdr-developer.org/attachments/355/vdr-1.7.12-detachreceiver-4.diff Well, I don't like the idea of introducing yet another parameter ("volatile") here. The "priority" should be sufficient to solve this. So if you can suggest a solution that works solely with priorities, I might take a look ;-) Klaus _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
