On 3/20/2018 7:44 PM, James Almer wrote: > On 3/16/2018 3:21 PM, James Almer wrote: >> Signed-off-by: James Almer <jamr...@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? > > Ping?
No comments or preferences at all on how to introduce this? _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel