Quoting James Almer (2023-11-09 12:47:56)
> On 11/9/2023 8:41 AM, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting James Almer (2023-11-04 14:39:44)
> >> On 11/4/2023 4:56 AM, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> >>> This will be the appropriate place for it after the rest of transcoding
> >>> is switched to a threaded architecture.
> >>> ---
> >>> fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >>> 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c b/fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c
> >>> index 82352b7981..57fb8a8413 100644
> >>> --- a/fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c
> >>> +++ b/fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c
> >>> @@ -207,6 +207,67 @@ static int sync_queue_process(Muxer *mux,
> >>> OutputStream *ost, AVPacket *pkt, int
> >>> return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +/* apply the output bitstream filters */
> >>> +static int mux_packet_filter(Muxer *mux, OutputStream *ost,
> >>> + AVPacket *pkt, int *stream_eof)
> >>> +{
> >>> + MuxStream *ms = ms_from_ost(ost);
> >>> + const char *err_msg;
> >>> + int ret = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (ms->bsf_ctx) {
> >>> + int bsf_eof = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (pkt)
> >>> + av_packet_rescale_ts(pkt, pkt->time_base,
> >>> ms->bsf_ctx->time_base_in);
> >>> +
> >>> + ret = av_bsf_send_packet(ms->bsf_ctx, pkt);
> >>> + if (ret < 0) {
> >>
> >> Unrelated to this patch, but this should probably include a comment
> >> about the reason we're not checking for EAGAIN, like we do for
> >> avcodec_send_packet().
> >
> > Isn't the situation pretty much the same here - seeing EAGAIN would be a
> > bug?
>
> Yes, and a similar comment here is a good idea as people may use
> ffmpeg.c as a reference implementation for our APIs.
Right, then certainly there should be a comment or maybe even a check
like for decoding.
--
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
