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 5462D4C3E3 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 12:19:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46EFE68D682; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:19:46 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net (red.khirnov.net [176.97.15.12]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 629B968C759 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:19:39 +0300 (EEST) Authentication-Results: mail0.khirnov.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=khirnov.net header.i=@khirnov.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=cIT2n7+r; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07DC9240DB7 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:19:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail0.khirnov.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id AcIILA-JlTcH for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:19:38 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=khirnov.net; s=mail; t=1721996378; bh=q13F0RSLFgYI+w6WBHtTmpON/dvQBZNt34h4UNYfzes=; h=Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=cIT2n7+r7Rraq5jq3tQb2nItP9Uylrz80JAoPGD4of8rOz7fIqX/uMXI1kZHkgYnR E2EQVDRC0qg4mcc/5fLO0dUczSTHwqzSNRwQVwCwhy8ld6psUKDbK0usVlYc0OZw+t CoePl9DhhfH5vYC/rfHbF+eeTDOqS8gK6D3ohZUkOjdkPLLi1N+rue1m1A4PLZ9Ok4 dx3G8ceI1OBdw9mHHHlY27PY7ZWlJUK+pcZjifghcZSXteBwV9enbOP6ybes+nUxmF aIyvjPpuvNZlNA/4z6nSZRW3WiUPhqlSiBG/VIhMaTQXmZ541wJpW1fenycZ78PrYR HWm6dbyrL50sg== 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 3CD93240695 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:19:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by lain.khirnov.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1B0FC1601B9; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:19:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Anton Khirnov To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches In-Reply-To: <835ecedf-129b-4600-a1b9-66083e969a1c@gmail.com> References: <20240721225350.298-1-jamrial@gmail.com> <20240721225350.298-4-jamrial@gmail.com> <172198051442.21344.13086861882221487165@lain.khirnov.net> <835ecedf-129b-4600-a1b9-66083e969a1c@gmail.com> Mail-Followup-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:19:38 +0200 Message-ID: <172199637808.21344.1103797707765183066@lain.khirnov.net> User-Agent: alot/0.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 4/4 v2] avcodec/h264dec: add support for LCEVC enhancement 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 James Almer (2024-07-26 14:10:46) > On 7/26/2024 4:55 AM, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > Quoting James Almer (2024-07-22 00:53:50) > >> Signed-off-by: James Almer > >> --- > >> configure | 2 +- > >> libavcodec/avcodec.h | 5 +++++ > >> libavcodec/h264_picture.c | 1 + > >> libavcodec/h264_slice.c | 15 ++++++++++++++ > >> libavcodec/h264dec.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > >> libavcodec/h264dec.h | 3 +++ > >> 6 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > Does this need to be integrated into individual decoders? Can't the > > generic path apply it based on the presence of AV_FRAME_DATA_LCEVC sdide > > data and AV_CODEC_EXPORT_DATA_ENHANCEMENTS being set? > > Individual decoders still need to be aware of lcevc metadata being > present to do things like allocating the output frame, because afaik i > can't call get_buffer2() from the main/user thread. So is it worth > moving things to the generic code when DR1 decoders will still need > extra considerations? Can it not be handled in ff_get_buffer()? And even if not - there'd still be a lot less code that needs to be duplicated across every decoder supporting this. -- 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".