> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Zane
> van Iperen
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 8:17 PM
> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avfilter/vf_xcam: add xcam video filter
>
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 00:55:56 +0800
> "zongwave" <wei.z...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > ++static int xcam_query_formats(AVFilterContext *ctx) {
> > ++ XCAMContext *s = ctx->priv;
> > ++ AVFilterFormats *formats = NULL;
> > ++
> > ++ static const enum AVPixelFormat nv12_fmts[] = {AV_PIX_FMT_NV12,
> AV_PIX_FMT_NONE};
> > ++ static const enum AVPixelFormat yuv420_fmts[] =
> {AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P, AV_PIX_FMT_NONE};
> > ++ static const enum AVPixelFormat auto_fmts[] = {AV_PIX_FMT_NV12,
> > ++ AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P, AV_PIX_FMT_NONE};
>
> Would these be better above the function instead of inside it?
>
I noticed many vf implementation in libavfilter defined "static const"
variables inside a function,
I just think this is a common style for libavfilter.
> > ++static av_cold int xcam_init(AVFilterContext *ctx) {
> > ++ XCAMContext *s = ctx->priv;
> > ++ int ret = 0;
> > ++
> > ++ s->handle = xcam_create_handle(s->name);
> > ++ if (!s->handle) {
>
> Style nitpick, I'd tend to prefer inlining the assignment:
>
> if (!(s->handle = xcam_create_handle(s->name)))
>
> but I guess that's personal preference.
>
>
> Overall looks fine, but someone more familiar with libavfilter should probably
> double-check.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org
> with subject "unsubscribe".
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
