On 11/02/16 18:05, Diego Biurrun wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:45:00PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: >> Quoting Vittorio Giovara (2016-02-11 17:19:26) >>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Anton Khirnov <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Quoting Vittorio Giovara (2016-02-09 22:43:13) >>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Anton Khirnov <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> --- >>>>>> libavfilter/buffersrc.c | 2 +- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/libavfilter/buffersrc.c b/libavfilter/buffersrc.c >>>>>> index f5b852f..0079f51 100644 >>>>>> --- a/libavfilter/buffersrc.c >>>>>> +++ b/libavfilter/buffersrc.c >>>>>> @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ static int request_frame(AVFilterLink *link) >>>>>> } >>>>>> av_fifo_generic_read(c->fifo, &frame, sizeof(frame), NULL); >>>>>> >>>>>> - ff_filter_frame(link, frame); >>>>>> + ret = ff_filter_frame(link, frame); >>>>>> >>>>>> return ret; >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> how about `return ff_filter_frame(link, frame);` >>>> >>>> To what end? >>> >>> you coalesce two lines, skip an assignment, and imho make the flow more >>> readable >> >> And if we ever want to add any more code between the call and return, >> we'll have to go back to this form anyway. Also, excessive nitpicking is >> evil. > > Yes, if you want to make changes, you have to make changes.. > > I agree with Vittorio that it's more concise and elegant and with you > that it's a minor issue.
So it can get in in one way or another =) lu _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
