Quoting James Almer (2023-11-04 14:39:44) > On 11/4/2023 4:56 AM, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > This will be the appropriate place for it after the rest of transcoding > > is switched to a threaded architecture. > > --- > > fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c b/fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c > > index 82352b7981..57fb8a8413 100644 > > --- a/fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c > > +++ b/fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c > > @@ -207,6 +207,67 @@ static int sync_queue_process(Muxer *mux, OutputStream > > *ost, AVPacket *pkt, int > > return 0; > > } > > > > +/* apply the output bitstream filters */ > > +static int mux_packet_filter(Muxer *mux, OutputStream *ost, > > + AVPacket *pkt, int *stream_eof) > > +{ > > + MuxStream *ms = ms_from_ost(ost); > > + const char *err_msg; > > + int ret = 0; > > + > > + if (ms->bsf_ctx) { > > + int bsf_eof = 0; > > + > > + if (pkt) > > + av_packet_rescale_ts(pkt, pkt->time_base, > > ms->bsf_ctx->time_base_in); > > + > > + ret = av_bsf_send_packet(ms->bsf_ctx, pkt); > > + if (ret < 0) { > > Unrelated to this patch, but this should probably include a comment > about the reason we're not checking for EAGAIN, like we do for > avcodec_send_packet().
Isn't the situation pretty much the same here - seeing EAGAIN would be a bug? -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ 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".