On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:15:32AM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote: > On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 07:18:27PM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote: > >> --- > >> As the commented case were cleared in separate patches, this last version > >> should address all comments received. > >> When memory is not immediately free'd it means it is cleared by .close. > >> The internal capability FF_CODEC_CAP_INIT_CLEANUP is employed to avoid > >> leaks. > >> Vittorio > >> > >> libavcodec/aacpsy.c | 6 ++++++ > >> libavcodec/asvenc.c | 2 ++ > >> libavcodec/dct.c | 2 ++ > >> libavcodec/eatgv.c | 2 ++ > >> libavcodec/huffyuvenc.c | 2 +- > >> libavcodec/jpeglsdec.c | 6 ++++++ > >> libavcodec/lclenc.c | 2 ++ > >> libavcodec/libtheoraenc.c | 6 ++++++ > >> libavcodec/libx264.c | 4 ++++ > >> libavcodec/libxvid.c | 6 ++++++ > >> libavcodec/psymodel.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > >> libavcodec/pthread_frame.c | 7 +++++++ > >> libavcodec/ratecontrol.c | 7 +++++++ > >> libavcodec/svq1enc.c | 8 ++++++++ > >> libavcodec/truemotion2.c | 10 ++++++++++ > >> libavcodec/wmaenc.c | 4 ++++ > >> libavcodec/xsubdec.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > >> 17 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > Why don't you split off and push the bits I already OKed? > > Because some parts were ok'd, some parts were rejected while they were > actually ok, some parts needed to be redone. It was too confusing for > me, I preferred a clean slate.
The lesson here seems to be that the patch is too big and should be split. Then the uncontroversial OKed bits wouldn't clutter up further reviews. Please split the patch. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
