On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 06:17:30PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 3/2/2018 5:54 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 03:36:02PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> >> On 3/2/2018 3:19 PM, wm4 wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 14:30:28 -0300
> >>> James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/2/2018 1:47 PM, wm4 wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:11:35 -0300
> >>>>> James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/2/2018 8:16 AM, wm4 wrote:
> >>>>>>> This adds a way for an API user to transfer QP data and metadata 
> >>>>>>> without
> >>>>>>> having to keep the reference to AVFrame, and without having to
> >>>>>>> explicitly care about QP APIs. It might also provide a way to finally
> >>>>>>> remove the deprecated QP related fields. In the end, the QP table 
> >>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>> be handled in a very similar way to e.g. AV_FRAME_DATA_MOTION_VECTORS.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There are two side data types, because I didn't care about having to
> >>>>>>> repack the QP data so the table and the metadata are in a single
> >>>>>>> AVBufferRef. Otherwise it would have either required a copy on 
> >>>>>>> decoding
> >>>>>>> (extra slowdown for something as obscure as the QP data), or would 
> >>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>> required making intrusive changes to the codecs which support export 
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> this data.  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why not add an AVBufferRef pointer to the qp_properties struct instead?
> >>>>>> You don't need to merge the properties fields into the buffer data.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not sure what you mean. The whole purpose of this is _not_ to add new
> >>>>> pointers because it'd require an API user to deal with extra fields
> >>>>> just for QP. I want to pretend that QP doesn't exist.
> >>>>
> >>>> I mean keep the buffer and the int fields all in a single opaque (for
> >>>> the user) struct handled by a single side data type. The user still only
> >>>> needs to worry about using the get/set functions and nothing else.
> >>>>
> >>>> See the attached, untested PoC to get an idea of what i mean.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I'm really missing the entire point of this patch (Which i don't
> >>>> discard may be the case), then ignore this.
> >>>
> >>> That would be nice, but unfortunately it's not allowed. An API user can
> >>> treat side data as byte arrays, and e.g. copy & restore it somewhere
> >>> (presumably even if the data is opaque and implementation defined).
> >>>
> >>> So the side data can't contain any pointers. The user could copy
> >>> the byte data, unref the AVBufferRef, and later add it back as side
> >>> data using the copied bytes. Then it'd contain a dangling pointer.
> >>
> >> Afaik, ref counting was added for frame side data because
> >> sizeof(AVFrameSideData) is not part of the ABI, meaning that users are
> >> not supposed to manipulate side data with anything except the provided
> >> API functions (new, remove, get, and now new_from_buf). Or at least that
> >> was agreed in the relevant thread from some time ago.
> >> This is not the case for AVPacketSideData, which is probably why it
> >> never got a ref count upgrade.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The side data merging (which we even still provide as API) would be an
> >>> application for that - it's for AVPacket, but there's nothing that
> >>> prevents the same assumptions with AVFrames.
> >>>
> >>> Unless we decide that at least AVFrame side data can contain pointers,
> >>> and the user must strictly use the AVBufferRef to manage the life time
> >>> of the data. Maybe I'm just overthinking this.
> >>
> >> As i said, since the user is not expected to manipulate the side data
> >> manually, then i don't see why it can't have pointers of any kind.
> > 
> > The user has to pass the data she gets from the demuxer to the decoder,
> > from the decoder to filters from there to an encoder and then to a muxer.
> > 
> > If byte per byte copying of side data is not possible anymore how would
> > the user do this ?
> AVFrame side data is supposedly ref counted. Shouldn't av_frame_ref()
> and av_frame_copy_props() both create new references of all source side
> data as they do for the actual frame data and countless other
> AVBufferRefs defined in AVFrame, and not do a memcpy of
> AVFrameSideData->data from src to dst frame?
> > Consider the user is most likely not basing her whole app on AVPackets
> > So she has to turn an AVPacket into something that can be passed within
> > the framework and language the application uses. 
> > So some form of generic array <-> side data copy or (de)serialization
> > would likely be needed
> This is not about AVPackets. Those currently can be freely manipulated
> as the user wishes.

AVPacket between the (de)mxuer/(de)coder, AVFrames between the remaining
parts. I worded this inprecisse without realizing

> It was established back when AVFrame refcounting was introduced that
> users are not to manipulate frame side data manually, and must only use
> the provided API.

I dont think treating side data for AVPackets differently than AVFrames
is a good idea.
That would be unexpected, confusing, inconsistent and
when the same side data is passed through both it could bite if a design
that works only in one case was already part of the puiblic API

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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

ffmpeg-devel mailing list

Reply via email to