[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avcodec/jpeg2000dec: Fix mixed declaration and code

[Paul B Mahol]

On 4/11/20, Anton Khirnov <anton at khirnov.net> wrote:
> Quoting Paul B Mahol (2020-04-11 10:59:34)
>> On 4/11/20, Anton Khirnov <anton at khirnov.net> wrote:
>> > Quoting Carl Eugen Hoyos (2020-04-09 18:13:53)
>> >> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 14:39 Uhr schrieb Andreas Rheinhardt
>> >> <andreas.rheinhardt at gmail.com>:
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Rheinhardt <andreas.rheinhardt at gmail.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >> >  libavcodec/jpeg2000dec.c | 5 +++--
>> >> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/libavcodec/jpeg2000dec.c b/libavcodec/jpeg2000dec.c
>> >> > index 846e31d0a2..9684e57b34 100644
>> >> > --- a/libavcodec/jpeg2000dec.c
>> >> > +++ b/libavcodec/jpeg2000dec.c
>> >> > @@ -862,6 +862,7 @@ static int get_plt(Jpeg2000DecoderContext *s, int
>> >> > n)
>> >> >  static int get_ppt(Jpeg2000DecoderContext *s, int n)
>> >> >  {
>> >> >      Jpeg2000Tile *tile;
>> >> > +    void *new;
>> >> >
>> >> >      if (n < 3) {
>> >> >          av_log(s->avctx, AV_LOG_ERROR, "Invalid length for PPT
>> >> > data.\n");
>> >> > @@ -879,8 +880,8 @@ static int get_ppt(Jpeg2000DecoderContext *s, int
>> >> > n)
>> >> >
>> >> >      tile->has_ppt = 1;  // this tile has a ppt marker
>> >> >      bytestream2_get_byte(&s->g); // Zppt is skipped and not used
>> >> > -    void* new = av_realloc(tile->packed_headers,
>> >> > -                           tile->packed_headers_size + n - 3);
>> >> > +    new = av_realloc(tile->packed_headers,
>> >> > +                     tile->packed_headers_size + n - 3);
>> >>
>> >> Please push such fixes directly, there is too much traffic already
>> >> on this mailing list.
>> >
>> > I disagree. IMO everything that goes into the repo should pass through
>> > the mailing list.
>> >
>>
>> I 100% disagree.
>
> 100%? Meaning you think no patches should go to the mailing list?
>
> Or only some specific patches are exempt? Based on what criterion? And
> who applies it?
> And most importantly, why?

Only trivial patches, like cosmetics of few lines, and this one above
and functional patches that clean ups code.

Why? Because it adds too much burden for real review work on this mailing list.