[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avcodec: avutil: use avutil/thread.h instead of redundant conditional includes

[Ganesh Ajjanagadde]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Clément Bœsch <u at pkh.me> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 10:53:58AM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Clément Bœsch <u at pkh.me> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 10:22:10AM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Clément Bœsch <u at pkh.me> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 04:13:11PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
>> >> > > Le septidi 17 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Clement Boesch a écrit :
>> >> > > > From: Clément Bœsch <clement at stupeflix.com>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > ---
>> >> > > >  libavcodec/frame_thread_encoder.c |  9 +--------
>> >> > > >  libavcodec/pthread_frame.c        | 10 ++--------
>> >> > > >  libavcodec/utils.c                |  9 +--------
>> >> > > >  libavcodec/vp8.h                  |  9 +--------
>> >> > > >  libavutil/opencl.c                | 10 +---------
>> >> > > >  libavutil/threadmessage.c         | 12 +-----------
>> >> > > >  6 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > No objection from me.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Will push soon
>> >> >
>> >> > > Nit: "avutil, avcodec:" or "lavu, lavc:" instead of "avutil: avcodec:".
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > sure.
>> >> >
>> >> > BTW, i think we should decide on av{util,codec,...} vs lav[ufc...] and
>> >> > stick with it. This inconsistency is triggering my mild OCD.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hahahahaha :-D.
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you bofh us and tell us what to do and we'll follow? I nominate
>> >> you to be the review-bully and ensure people follow your rule.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm using the av* form for historical reasons, but I'd prefer lav* one if
>> > that was only up to me.
>>
>> Personally, I prefer av*. The main reason is that it takes an extra
>> fraction of a second for me (used to be ~ 1 second before) to process
>> lavf vs lavfi as opposed to avformat vs avfilter - I get slightly
>> confused between the more similar lavf and lavfi.
>>
>> Anyway, I don't really mind any solution: stick with the
>> inconsistency, move to the short forms, or move to the long forms.
>>
>
> Note that with Libav using the lav* form, it will never be consistent if
> we don't follow them.

Good enough reason for me :). Someone can perhaps add it to patcheck.

>
> --
> Clément B.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>