[FFmpeg-cvslog] r26053 - in trunk: libavformat/asfdec.c tests/ref/fate/wmv8-drm

Reimar Döffinger Reimar.Doeffinger
Sun Dec 19 00:09:53 CET 2010


On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:41:59PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 08:55:14PM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 08:32:41PM +0100, Vitor Sessak wrote:
> > > On 12/18/2010 06:19 PM, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > > >On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:43:38AM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> > > >>On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 8:18 AM, reimar<subversion at mplayerhq.hu>  wrote:
> > > >>>Author: reimar
> > > >>>Date: Sat Dec 18 14:18:52 2010
> > > >>>New Revision: 26053
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Log:
> > > >>>Change ASF demuxer to return incomplete last packets.
> > > >>>Whether the behaviour for streams using scrambling makes sense
> > > >>>is unclear.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Modified:
> > > >>>   trunk/libavformat/asfdec.c
> > > >>>   trunk/tests/ref/fate/wmv8-drm
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Modified: trunk/libavformat/asfdec.c
> > > >>>==============================================================================
> > > >>>--- trunk/libavformat/asfdec.c  Sat Dec 18 06:15:32 2010        (r26052)
> > > >>>+++ trunk/libavformat/asfdec.c  Sat Dec 18 14:18:52 2010        (r26053)
> > > >>>@@ -953,12 +953,24 @@ static int ff_asf_parse_packet(AVFormatC
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         ret = get_buffer(pb, asf_st->pkt.data + asf->packet_frag_offset,
> > > >>>                          asf->packet_frag_size);
> > > >>>-        if (ret != asf->packet_frag_size)
> > > >>>-            return ret>= 0 ? AVERROR_EOF : ret;
> > > >>>+        if (ret != asf->packet_frag_size) {
> > > >>>+            if (ret<  0 || asf->packet_frag_offset + ret == 0)
> > > >>>+                return ret<  0 ? ret : AVERROR_EOF;
> > > >>>+            if (asf_st->ds_span>  1) {
> > > >>>+                // scrambling, we can either drop it completely or fill the remainder
> > > >>>+                // TODO: should we fill the whole packet instead of just the current
> > > >>>+                // fragment?
> > > >>>+                memset(asf_st->pkt.data + asf->packet_frag_offset + ret, 0,
> > > >>>+                       asf->packet_frag_size - ret);
> > > >>>+                ret = asf->packet_frag_size;
> > > >>>+            } else
> > > >>>+                // no scrambling, so we can return partial packets
> > > >>>+                av_shrink_packet(&asf_st->pkt, asf->packet_frag_offset + ret);
> > > >>>+        }
> > > >>>         if (s->key&&  s->keylen == 20)
> > > >>>             ff_asfcrypt_dec(s->key, asf_st->pkt.data + asf->packet_frag_offset,
> > > >>>-                            asf->packet_frag_size);
> > > >>>-        asf_st->frag_offset += asf->packet_frag_size;
> > > >>>+                            ret);
> > > >>>+        asf_st->frag_offset += ret;
> > > >>>         /* test if whole packet is read */
> > > >>>         if (asf_st->frag_offset == asf_st->pkt.size) {
> > > >>>             //workaround for macroshit radio DVR-MS files
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Modified: trunk/tests/ref/fate/wmv8-drm
> > > >>>==============================================================================
> > > >>>--- trunk/tests/ref/fate/wmv8-drm       Sat Dec 18 06:15:32 2010        (r26052)
> > > >>>+++ trunk/tests/ref/fate/wmv8-drm       Sat Dec 18 14:18:52 2010        (r26053)
> > > >>>@@ -160,3 +160,4 @@
> > > >>>  0, 596250, 84480, 0xbce22331
> > > >>>  0, 600000, 84480, 0x020545d7
> > > >>>  0, 603750, 84480, 0x71869e48
> > > >>>+0, 607500, 84480, 0x5befc578
> > > >>
> > > >>Various fate platforms fail te wmv8-drm test now, e.g. x86-32 (but
> > > >>x86-64 works fine).
> > > >
> > > >This time unfortunately the issue is indeed that the VC-1 decoder reads outside
> > > >the packet size.
> > > >Below hack would fix it, but that is of course not ok.
> > > >My proposal would be to remove that fate test an only keep the one I added
> > > >(does not decode), unless someone comes up with a way to fix the VC-1 decoder...
> > > 
> > > This is not ideal, since the coverage of the VC-1 decoder is far
> > > from great in FATE already, and decoding one file less will only
> > > make it worse. Can't you re-cut the file to remove the incomplete
> > > frame?
> 
> it should be easy to add a -vframes 123 parameter to the fate test to limit
> testing to the part that decodes exactly

162, but yes, I'll do that.



More information about the ffmpeg-cvslog mailing list