[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] [RFC][WIP] avutil/buffer: add add a dynamnic size buffer pool API
michael at niedermayer.cc
Sun Mar 18 11:41:22 EET 2018
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 10:46:22PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 3/17/2018 10:33 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 09:26:32PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> >> On 3/17/2018 8:48 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 03:21:41PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> >>>> Signed-off-by: James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> This is a proof of concept for a dynamic size buffer pool API.
> >>>> For the purpose of easy testing and reviewing I replaced the current
> >>>> linked list used to keep a pool of fixed size buffers with the tree
> >>>> based pool that will be used to keep a pool of varying size buffers,
> >>>> instead of adding a new set of functions exclusively for the new API.
> >>>> The final committed work doesn't necessarely have to do the above, as
> >>>> there's no real benefit using a tree when you only need a fixed size
> >>>> buffer pool, other than simplying things.
> >>>> I'm open to suggestions about how to introduce this. Completely
> >>>> separate set of functions and struct names? Sharing the struct and
> >>>> init/uninit functions and only adding a new get() one like in this
> >>>> patch?
> >>>> Any preferences with function/struct naming, for that matter?
> >>>> libavutil/buffer.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >>>> libavutil/buffer.h | 2 +
> >>>> libavutil/buffer_internal.h | 6 ++-
> >>>> 3 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >>> not sure its not intended but this causes differences
> >>> in error concealment on many files
> >> Not intended by me, at least. And not sure how using a tree instead of a
> >> linked list to keep a pool of buffers could affect that. The way they
> >> are allocated or returned is not changed, and all the existing users are
> >> still only creating fixed sized buffers.
> >> Do you have an idea of what could be happening? The way the tree is
> > is always the same buffer used as before ?
> Was thinking that, yes. The pool organized by the tree most assuredly
> orders the buffers in a different way than the linked list (Which i
> think is simply FIFO), so the h264 decoder or whatever is handling the
> pool here now gets a different buffer after calling av_buffer_pool_get().
> This would mean the EC code is overreading bytes, and that the buffer is
> not zeroed after being requested. The former should probably be fixed.
the problem is probably that damaged video frames leave some areas
uninitialized. Quite possibly a consequence of some corner cases not
being supported in the EC code.
This is a bug of course if its what happens and should be fixed.
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
If you drop bombs on a foreign country and kill a hundred thousand
innocent people, expect your government to call the consequence
"unprovoked inhuman terrorist attacks" and use it to justify dropping
more bombs and killing more people. The technology changed, the idea is old.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ffmpeg-devel