[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avutil: Add Simple loop detector

[Lynne]

Aug 12, 2019, 20:53 by michael at niedermayer.cc:

> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 08:30:51PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>
>> On 08.08.2019, at 10:36, Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>>
>> > This provides an alternative to retry counters.
>> > Useful if there is no reasonable maximum number of iterations and
>> > no ordering that naturally avoids loops.
>>
>> Going by the old principle of "an API is not tested until it has at least 3 users"
>> might it make sense to delay this until we've found and tested it in a few use-cases?
>> Depending on how much hurry there is to get the bug-fix in.
>>
>> I assume there is also an actual bug-fix patch somewhere, maybe we should have that
>> in the same patch series to make it easier to review the actual usage?
>>
>
> sure will repost this eventually with 3+ bugfixes.
> But wont search for such bugs ATM as ive too many other things to do
> so it might take a bit of time before i do
>
>
>>
>> > diff --git a/doc/APIchanges b/doc/APIchanges
>> > index 6603a8229e..eee4c30ec5 100644
>> > --- a/doc/APIchanges
>> > +++ b/doc/APIchanges
>> > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ libavutil:     2017-10-21
>> > 
>> > API changes, most recent first:
>> > 
>> > +2019-XX-XX - XXXXXXXXXX - lavu 56.XX.XXX - loop_detector.h
>> > +  Add loop_detector.h, av_is_loop(), AVSimpleLoopDetector
>>
>> Does is mean it is a public/installed header?
>>
>
> that was intended, but it can of course be trivially be kept local if people
> prefer when i repost with 3+ dependant fixes 
>

You are ignoring 2 developers, and this isn't the first time you're doing this, nor even the second.
I still do no think even with 3 bugfixes this deserves to be in lavu but rather in every library as a non-installed header, at the very most. I still prefer for code to be duplicated for such a small amount of fixes.
Iit could encourage other developers to put this in their code when it isn't needed when a properly written loop would never go infinite.
And, regardless where this code goes, its still as its been pointed out, a hack.