-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 81
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comment: Is Master/Slave broken? #1188
Comments
-S does not apply to satip. Most implementation is in dvb.c |
Hi @catalinii , I feel you say: |
Hi @catalinii , I'm refactoring the code of the adapter selection based on Master/Slave and I have a question: It's the current implementation working? Using physical attached tuners this really works? I feel some error exist inside the code. Check this: Lines 651 to 655 in 6d32c4c
Returning TRUE when some parameter it's different? Really? My assumption has return true if all parameters match. This is not an error? The ultimate question is: If the current implementation of |
It would be best to add tests for the functionality before attempting to refactor it. |
Sorry, but I don't have much time to implement the tests. And I don't know very well the code that @catalinii has implemented. So the first step: Does anyone use the master/slave function and does it work on minisatip? |
The current implementation from adapter accounts for the fact that you can have multiple streams for the same adapter. So the first stream owning the adapter is the master. The other ones are the slaves. My concern is only that the implementation is fragile enough that if you do it, it will take a lot of time to stabilize. The contract currently is simple:
If you really want to do this, you should propose a clear design on what you want to do and how you want to do it, highlight the contract between adapter -> dvb/axe/satipc/netceiver and how you will test it. |
Hi @catalinii , Thank you for your comments. And I agree with the idea of non-change the code when it's fragile. But the firs question here is: The current implementation related to the Master/Slave functionality is working in some use case, or it's broken? The question has sense because:
So, you know if it's working? I suspect something could not work because the comments from #1174. |
It works for AXE devices at least, I use it to make tuner 3 use physical input 3 and the rest physical input 0. But for AXE we should probably move to using a separate parameter and let |
Hi @Jalle19 , OK. Then almost it works in some use case: AXE. Please, share the command line for your server. And so what would you prefer to do for the next step? |
Hi, If nobody objects, I'll try implement a new parameter in order to keep the current Master/Slave code untouched. My proposal is to incorporate this a parameter: |
I am trying to understand the proposal… are you proposing to implement master/slave for satip? Is this the outcome you are trying to achieve? |
Hi @catalinii ,
Description of the proposal:
I hope that is clear enough. I'm implementing it now and I have an initial version that I'm testing. One "complex" use case that will be supported:
|
Hi @catalinii (et all),
Based on the issue #1174 I done this "simple" test:
... -e 0-1 -a 2:0:0 -s 192.168.1.71 -s 192.168.1.72 ...
... -e 0-1 -a 2:0:0 -s 192.168.1.71 -s 192.168.1.72 ... -S 1:0
-S 1:0
using two http clients requesting different bands. The second tuner always tries to request even if the band/polarization is different.So: could the Master/Slave configuration be broken?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: