[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver because of worrying about possible misusage?

    I perfectly remember your opinion regarding vtuner.

    2011/12/3 Devin Heitmueller <>:
    > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Alan Cox <> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 09:21:23 -0800
    >> VDR User <> wrote:
    >>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Andreas Oberritter <> 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%.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-12-05 00:57    [W:0.023 / U:60.344 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site