On 7/28/2018 6:59 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:57:47AM -0300, James Almer wrote: >> Signed-off-by: James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> >> --- >> I'm not 100% sure this is correct. I also don't know if the CBS contexts need >> to be fully reinitialized or not in this scenario. Because if so, then every >> bsf using cbs will require a flush() callback as well. >> >> libavcodec/h264_redundant_pps_bsf.c | 9 +++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > Do we have a fate test for this ?
It doesn't look like this filter is tested. but even if it were, no decoder autoinserts it, so this flush() function would not be covered by any test either way. > Also from a quick look, isnt this filter lacking checks ? > it removes PPS but i see no check that these PPS differ only in the qp > related parameters. Also doesnt this filter miss that there can be multiple > PPS with different id# > > Maybe iam missing something and this is of course not about the > patch at hand but it looks like this is a quite specific filter that > cannot saftely be applied to h264 in general and if so this is not > obvious from the documentation. Mark is probably the best person to answer this. > > thx > > [...] > > > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
