[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] rtsp - alternate protocol

Luca Abeni lucabe72
Fri Dec 28 23:12:54 CET 2007


Hi Ronald,

Luca Abeni wrote:
> Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> [...]
>>> If I understand the code correctly, it is explicitly copying in path
>>> only the part of the URL contained between "/" and "?".
>>>
>>> Should it be fixed by removing the "strchr(p, '?')"? Wouldn't this break
>>> something else?
>>
>> That sounds correct, I think you can commit that.
> Uhmmm... That was my impression too... But this change would basically 
> reverse r10775, which claim to fix a regression. So, fixing a bug risks 
> to re-introduce an old regression... I need to investigate this issue a 
> little bit more.

It seems that the situation is more messy than I expected:
1) url_split() has been rewritten in r10605
2) the rewrite introduced a regression, by changing the behaviour of 
url_split()
3) r10775 claimed to fix the regression by introducing yet another 
different behaviour in url_split(). And this is the change that broke 
option parsing in rtsp.c.

Some data points:
1) Before r10605, rtsp://localhost:5454/test1-rtsp.mpg?tcp resulted in 
path="/test1-rtsp.mpg?tcp"
2) After r10605, the same url produced path="/test1-rtsp.mpg?tcp", so no 
change for this test case...
3) r10775 "fixed" something so that the result is now 
path="/test1-rtsp.mpg?".
4) So, I tried a different url: rtsp://localhost?tcp. The results are 
path="?tcp" before r10605, path="" after r10605, and path="" after 
r10775. Again, that commit does not seem to fix any regression.

So, can anyone explain what's the supposed behaviour of url_split()? 
Which testcase was fixed by r10775?
Ronald, it looks like this is your stuff (all these patches are by you). 
Can you have a look?


			Thanks,
				Luca




More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list