From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5142F457C7 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 20:16:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD0668BF21; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 23:16:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net (red.khirnov.net [176.97.15.12]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A669668BA81 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 23:16:39 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FFF62404EE for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 22:16:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail0.khirnov.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jx06izQJ0hwE for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 22:16:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lain.khirnov.net (lain.khirnov.net [IPv6:2001:67c:1138:4306::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "lain.khirnov.net", Issuer "smtp.khirnov.net SMTP CA" (verified OK)) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62AD42404EC for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 22:16:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by lain.khirnov.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 406761601B2; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 22:16:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Anton Khirnov To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches In-Reply-To: <5e23352c-434c-1135-827d-49438c7cf11@passwd.hu> References: <168217824856.3843.12078608174603704828@lain.khirnov.net> <2154f93d-aa9-21da-966-a18399b33bf1@passwd.hu> <168224247972.9711.2598182970187678748@lain.khirnov.net> <168224350165.3843.7618353870792865075@lain.khirnov.net> <3587873f-7b50-a98c-70ce-443aeb93b9ae@passwd.hu> <168225127500.3843.6466868436482522174@lain.khirnov.net> <5e23352c-434c-1135-827d-49438c7cf11@passwd.hu> Mail-Followup-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 22:16:38 +0200 Message-ID: <168228099822.3843.5128524518650472655@lain.khirnov.net> User-Agent: alot/0.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v2] fftools/ffmpeg_mux: fix reporting muxer EOF as error X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Quoting Marton Balint (2023-04-23 20:15:13) > > > On Sun, 23 Apr 2023, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > Quoting Marton Balint (2023-04-23 12:05:51) > >> > >> > >> On Sun, 23 Apr 2023, Anton Khirnov wrote: > >> > >>> Quoting Marton Balint (2023-04-23 11:42:48) > >>>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2023, Anton Khirnov wrote: > >>>>> Quoting Marton Balint (2023-04-23 11:12:38) > >>>>>> This seems like yet another clash of AVERROR_EOF error codes coming from > >>>>>> different places with different semantics. For > >>>>>> av_interleaved_write_frame(), AVERROR_EOF is an error condition, so > >>>>>> file encoding should fail, > >>>>> > >>>>> Why should it fail? I'd think a muxer returning EOF is the way to signal > >>>>> non-error muxer-side termination. > >>>> > >>>> That would be an API change. AVERROR_EOF is not special in any way from > >>>> other error codes for av_interleaved_write_frame. A muxer cannot signal > >>>> non-error muxer side termination with existing API. > >>> > >>> All error codes (should) have a specific meaning. I cannot think of a > >>> good reason for a muxer to return AVERROR_EOF to signal an error. > >>> Can you? > >> > >> Previously, we expeced users to treat any negative error code as error for > >> av_interleaved_write_frame(). > > > > I don't think we expect the users to do anything in particular in > > responce to av_interleaved_write_frame() return codes. The doxy says > > that it returns a negative error code on error, but the caller can > > freely decide what to do with that information - this includes ignoring > > it. > > I don't understand. A good program propagates back error conditions to the > user, and not hides them silently. I do not think blanket claims such as this are a good idea. What is or is not considered "an error condition" depends on the context. As I said before - I don't see why a muxer should ever return AVERROR_EOF to signal a legitimate muxing error. -- 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-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".