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

[Manu Abraham]

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

A point to be noted:

DVB itself is a network protocol; If you have a satellite network,
most likely it is a DVB network where the whole network packets
are encapsulated within DVB (MPEG TS) packets.
--
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/