On Thursday, 06 October 2011 at 23:13, Erik Hovland wrote:
>>> Ugh! That patch "worked" but was wrong. It was comparing an offset into >>> the >>> title to raw sector numbers. Here's a correction. >>> >> Just a follow up to let you know that this patch is in my tree >> currently. If you make any modifications, please feel free to >> update this thread w/ a new patch. >> > Thanks. I've done quite a bit of testing with this version and a "bad" > disc I created with a dry-erase marker. It's performing solidly. Also > got it into the hands of one of our users that had a few problem discs > and it worked well for him. Ping Nico. Could you approve/reject this? Ping2. Ping3. Anyone? It is still in my tree. If John could address Reimar's last qualms: | Is a whole lot simpler but still feels suboptimal. | I also don't know if handling the cell change is quite right here or | if it wouldn't belong into dvdnav_scan_admap...
But I think that we could probably submit the patch w/out addressing these last issues.
E
I thought I had. I incorporated his suggestions and responded to the issue about admap. From my previous emal on this patch:
"dvdnav_scan_admap didn't look like the right place for handling the cell boundary because it currently doesn't touch the cell information at all. In order to handle the boundary, it would have to replicate a lot of code that is already in dvdnav_sector_search."
I didn't get further feedback.
Yes, I remember that it went pretty quiet in this thread. So I still think we should push this patch (and I will do it later if someone doesn't beat me to it).
Agreed. Please push. I'm taking it off my list, then. Thanks and regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"