On 28.12.2016 15:26, glenvt18 wrote:
Just an observation. That code from vdr.c that calls
GetDeviceForTransponder() (for example, when a VPS timer is about to
start) can only interrupt tasks with priority < LIVEPRIORITY anyway. It
looks like disabling priority checking can't do much harm here. Is
Implementing "device bonding" (formerly known as "LNB sharing") has
had quite an impact on VDR's dvbdevice.c, and made the code quite
a bit more complex. Since this feature is really just an ugly hack,
and it makes much more sense to provide each device with its own
antenna cable, rather that conn
Hi Klaus,
well, you're right it's a hack, but IMHO not really an ugly one. A similar
function is up today part of some premium products from Loewe or Metz, bonding
two DVB-S/S2 tuners.
Originally it was limited to two devices, what really can make sense. I have
never seen any reason to make th
On 01.01.2017 13:57, fnu wrote:
Hi Klaus,
well, you're right it's a hack, but IMHO not really an ugly one. A similar
function is up today part of some premium products from Loewe or Metz, bonding
two DVB-S/S2 tuners.
Originally it was limited to two devices, what really can make sense. I have
> So I take it you yourself are *not* using this feature, right?
Not active anymore, but in the past for many years, just up to a couple of
years ago for my development machine.
Getting rid of that feature may also causing the comeback of any sort of patch,
maybe causing other issue, nobody can
There's no point in worrying about what-if scenarios, actual real
world usage is what matters. Klaus is giving those who use device
bonding the chance to speak up now. If there's very little-to-no
interest in it, it's gone. Unless I've misunderstood the intention
here. If there rally is someone out
Derek,
they do in vdr-portal.de ... as I already do remember a bunch of users still
using that function and the reasons why, so no what-if-scenarios.
fnu
___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
> they do in vdr-portal.de ... as I already do remember a bunch of users still
> using that function and the reasons why, so no what-if-scenarios.
Not sure why you didn't mention that earlier but aside of that it
still doesn't answer this part: "I'd like to know why they don't just
use a switch.
Derek,
pretty simple, there are users who cannot change their SAT infrastructure
easily. The reasons are varied, e.g. they are tenants and not allowed to change
it by the owners, they own it and cannot change it due to the rules of
commonhold association or the own it and the construction of ap
Am 01.01.2017 um 18:36 schrieb VDR User:
>> they do in vdr-portal.de ... as I already do remember a bunch of users still
>> using that function and the reasons why, so no what-if-scenarios.
>
> Not sure why you didn't mention that earlier but aside of that it
> still doesn't answer this part: "I'
Happy New Year VDR users.
There have been a few updates to the vdr-convert script + tools over at
https://projects.vdr-developer.org/projects/vdr-convert/wiki in the last
few weeks:
* Added support for AC3/DTS streams in VDR1.x recordings (updated
Genindex). Needs more compatibility testing
Happy new year!
I second that feedback from forums like vdr-portal.de would probably be more significant.
I have been using the old LNB-sharing patch for years and really appreciated when device bonding became part of vdr itself. I am still using the feature and find it is one of the cool
> pretty simple, there are users who cannot change their SAT infrastructure
> easily. The reasons are varied, e.g. they are tenants and not allowed to
> change it by the owners, they own it and cannot change it due to the rules of
> commonhold association or the own it and the construction of ap
> I would like to know which magic switch behind a single cable receiving only
> one polarization/band allows feeding multiple tuners with independent
> signals. ;-)
There is no "magic", you probably should read up on switches I guess.
___
vdr mailing
14 matches
Mail list logo
