Quoting Luca Barbato (2015-10-18 00:08:20) > On 16/10/15 19:52, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > Quoting Luca Barbato (2015-10-16 06:20:26) > >> Rename `av_init_packet`, `av_shrink_packet`, `av_grow_packet` and > >> `av_new_packet` to use the `av_packet_` namespace. > > > > I do not think such changes are a good idea. > > Since the concensus is to gradually disallow packets on stack, it would > > be better to do any renames as a part of that, not on their own. > > > > It will come tomorrow as well, again, I'm sending this stuff in chunks > since it is large enough in itself.
It doesn't look all that large to me so far. So I think it would be much easier to review if you finished the whole set and then sent it at once as one thread. > > The functions in themselves do not change when the avpackets are allocated. > If the packets on stack are forbidden, then av_init_packet() has no reason to exist, so it can go away. Also, I don't see why should we have both av_grow_packet and av_shrink_packet. One function for resizing should be enough. And even if, as you say, the function did not need any changes beyond renaming, then we should not touch them at all. Renaming (if not adding av prefixes to unprefixed stuff) is pretty much cosmetics, and I do not think it is a sufficient reason to break API. We're annoying our downstreams quite enough with all the other breakage. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
