2011/3/7 Klaus Schmidinger <klaus.schmidin...@tvdr.de>:
> 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

Reply via email to