[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Question for Intel QSV low latency
Hi, this is re-posting of below message. http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2017-November/219643.html I believe the patch format is correct this time around. In order to encode with low latency in Intel QSV, we need to fix libavcodec/qsvenc.c like below diff info. I don't understand why q->async_fifo would be set to q->async_depth "+1". If you know about that or have any comments or suggestions, please tell me. Thank you. --- libavcodec/qsvenc.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/libavcodec/qsvenc.c b/libavcodec/qsvenc.c index 2bc19f5241..7d73c64dca 100644 --- a/libavcodec/qsvenc.c +++ b/libavcodec/qsvenc.c @@ -803,7 +803,7 @@ int ff_qsv_enc_init(AVCodecContext *avctx, QSVEncContext *q) q->param.AsyncDepth = q->async_depth; -q->async_fifo = av_fifo_alloc((1 + q->async_depth) * +q->async_fifo = av_fifo_alloc((q->async_depth) * (sizeof(AVPacket) + sizeof(mfxSyncPoint*) + sizeof(mfxBitstream*))); if (!q->async_fifo) return AVERROR(ENOMEM); -- 2.13.6 (Apple Git-96) ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Patch question
On 12/15/2015 05:49 PM, Moritz Barsnick wrote: Hi Mats, On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 16:58:41 +0100, Mats Peterson wrote: Sorry if this may sound idiotic, but if I provide a unified patch for a file that is newer/different from the one I have here, it won't work, right? "It depends." ;-) By the way, git handles this kind of stuff nicely. It may or may not work. Obviously, if the file hasn't changed upstream, your patch will still apply. a) Best case: The files haven't changed upstream, your diff still applies. b) Good case: Upstream changed only unrelated parts of those file, your diff applies, perhaps with an offset (i.e. shifted in line numbers). b2) Almost as good: The unrelated changes are close to your changes, so you get a so-called fuzz. c) Bad case: Related parts were changed. Your diff won't apply, you have to reintegrate your changes, perhaps even differently. d) Worse case: Your patch applies, but affected methods were incompatibly changed. This leads to build or runtime errors, or broken functionality. It's always a good idea to check upstream changes to see whether they affect your patch. Most likely, a) or b) applies, but you don't know until you've checked. :-) Moritz ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel Thanks for the enlightening answer, Moritz. Now I don't possess an enormous amount of Git experience, but I guess it's best to get the latest version from Git before providing any new patches. It makes life easier for the potential testers, of course. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://matsp888.no-ip.org/~mats/ ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Patch question
Hi Mats, On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 16:58:41 +0100, Mats Peterson wrote: > Sorry if this may sound idiotic, but if I provide a unified patch for a > file that is newer/different from the one I have here, it won't work, right? "It depends." ;-) By the way, git handles this kind of stuff nicely. It may or may not work. Obviously, if the file hasn't changed upstream, your patch will still apply. a) Best case: The files haven't changed upstream, your diff still applies. b) Good case: Upstream changed only unrelated parts of those file, your diff applies, perhaps with an offset (i.e. shifted in line numbers). b2) Almost as good: The unrelated changes are close to your changes, so you get a so-called fuzz. c) Bad case: Related parts were changed. Your diff won't apply, you have to reintegrate your changes, perhaps even differently. d) Worse case: Your patch applies, but affected methods were incompatibly changed. This leads to build or runtime errors, or broken functionality. It's always a good idea to check upstream changes to see whether they affect your patch. Most likely, a) or b) applies, but you don't know until you've checked. :-) Moritz ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
[FFmpeg-devel] Patch question
Sorry if this may sound idiotic, but if I provide a unified patch for a file that is newer/different from the one I have here, it won't work, right? Mats -- Mats Peterson http://matsp888.no-ip.org/~mats/ ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
