On 6/21/2019 11:13 AM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> On 21/06/2019 14:46, James Almer wrote:
>> Why not just call this unconditionally instead of the init() + zero below?
>
> I wasn't sure from a quick skim if these packets were
> referenced elsewhere (and thus unrefercing twice would
> be problematic
On 21/06/2019 14:46, James Almer wrote:
> Why not just call this unconditionally instead of the init() + zero below?
I wasn't sure from a quick skim if these packets were
referenced elsewhere (and thus unrefercing twice would
be problematic).
If it's safe to do so, I will.
- Derel
__
On 6/21/2019 10:36 AM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> This packet was not necessarily unreferenced.
>
> Signed-off-by: Derek Buitenhuis
> ---
> fftools/ffprobe.c | 10 +-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fftools/ffprobe.c b/fftools/ffprobe.c
> index 3becb6330
This packet was not necessarily unreferenced.
Signed-off-by: Derek Buitenhuis
---
fftools/ffprobe.c | 10 +-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fftools/ffprobe.c b/fftools/ffprobe.c
index 3becb6330e..52f24e7dfd 100644
--- a/fftools/ffprobe.c
+++ b/fftools/ffprob
