Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marton Balint <cus@passwd.hu>
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v2] fftools/ffmpeg_mux: fix reporting muxer EOF as error
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 20:15:13 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5e23352c-434c-1135-827d-49438c7cf11@passwd.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <168225127500.3843.6466868436482522174@lain.khirnov.net>



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.

>
>> This is what is documented. ffmpeg.c followed this approach. Don't you
>> see the slightest problem if we suddenly change this?
>
> Seems to me you're mixing ffmpeg CLI and lavf behavior. My claim is
> entirely from the point of view of the CLI, and is this: if the muxer
> returns AVERROR_EOF, then it should be treated as normal termination.

I disagree. If ffmpeg.c ignores a specific muxer error code for whatever 
reason, that is a bug. At least it should fail if -xerror is given.

> This is similar to how other components behave - e.g. a (bitstream)
> filter can at any time decide to return EOF to its downstream,
> terminating a stream even though more input is available.

And for bitstream filters it is properly documented, and callers were 
always expected to act accordingly.

Regards,
Marton
_______________________________________________
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".

  reply	other threads:[~2023-04-23 18:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-22 12:56 Zhao Zhili
2023-04-22 15:44 ` Anton Khirnov
2023-04-23  9:12   ` Marton Balint
2023-04-23  9:34     ` Anton Khirnov
2023-04-23  9:42       ` Marton Balint
2023-04-23  9:48         ` "zhilizhao(赵志立)"
2023-04-23  9:51         ` Anton Khirnov
2023-04-23 10:05           ` Marton Balint
2023-04-23 10:07             ` Nicolas George
2023-04-23 12:01             ` Anton Khirnov
2023-04-23 18:15               ` Marton Balint [this message]
2023-04-23 20:16                 ` Anton Khirnov
2023-04-24  9:09                   ` Marton Balint
2023-04-24  9:19                     ` Nicolas George
2023-04-24 10:02                     ` Anton Khirnov
2023-04-24 18:41                       ` Marton Balint
2023-04-24 19:24                         ` Anton Khirnov
2023-04-24 19:42                           ` Marton Balint
2023-04-24 21:08                             ` Anton Khirnov
2023-04-25 14:37                               ` Nicolas George
2023-04-24 20:41                         ` Nicolas George
2023-04-24 10:08                     ` Anton Khirnov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5e23352c-434c-1135-827d-49438c7cf11@passwd.hu \
    --to=cus@passwd.hu \
    --cc=ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev/0 ffmpegdev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 ffmpegdev ffmpegdev/ https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev \
		ffmpegdev@gitmailbox.com
	public-inbox-index ffmpegdev

Example config snippet for mirrors.


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git