Re: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver becauseof worrying about possible misusage?

[Andreas Oberritter]

On 06.12.2011 15:19, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 01:01:43PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>> On 06.12.2011 12:21, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 09:41:38PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> 
>>>> Are you serious? Lower networking layers should be transparent to the
>>>> upper layers. You don't implement VPN or say TCP in all of your
>>>> applications, do you? These are just some more made-up arguments which
>>>> don't have anything to do with the use cases I explained earlier.
> 
>>> For real time applications it does make a big difference - decisions
>>> taken at the application level can greatly impact end application
>>> performance.  For example with VoIP on a LAN you can get great audio
> 
>> Can you please explain how this relates to the topic we're discussing?
> 
> Your assertatation that applications should ignore the underlying
> transport (which seems to be a big part of what you're saying) isn't
> entirely in line with reality.

Did you notice that we're talking about a very particular application?

VoIP really is totally off-topic. The B in DVB stands for broadcast.
There's only one direction in which MPEG payload is to be sent (using
RTP for example). You can't just re-encode the data on the fly without
loss of information.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/