Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Graphprint Patches Overview

["softworkz ." <softworkz-at-hotmail.com@ffmpeg.org>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of softworkz .
> Sent: Donnerstag, 22. Mai 2025 10:13
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
> Cc: Kieran Kunhya <kieran618@googlemail.com>; tc@ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Graphprint Patches Overview
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Kieran
> > Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel
> > Sent: Donnerstag, 22. Mai 2025 09:22
> > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
> > Cc: Kieran Kunhya <kieran618@googlemail.com>; tc@ffmpeg.org
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Graphprint Patches Overview
> >
> > It's obvious basic testing was not done on this patchset seeing the scale
> > of memory leaks.
> 
> 
> Which scale are you talking about? Did you test it? How much memory growth
> did you observe due to those leaks?
> 
> 
> Did you test and compare with the submitted fixes? Are you still seeing any
> leaks with those applied?
> 
> 
> Which functionality is affected exactly? Under which conditions did you
> observe those leaks.
> 
> 
> Did you identify any regressions in other FFmpeg functionality?
> 
> 
> Which specific parts of the implementation need more work?
> 
> 
> 
> > I would like the TC to decide on reverting and proper resubmission later.
> >
> > Kieran
> 
> Sure, I'm good with that.
> 
> But what you are requesting gives also testimony for that you don't even
> have the slightest clue about that patchset's contents, which somewhat
> disqualifies you for making such request. That's a bit funny, tbh.
> 
> _______________________________________________

The reason why I'm saying that is because if somebody would have looked
a bit at the patchset and the history over those 15 revisions, then they
would have realized that 10 of the patches have been actively reviewed
(*) two are trivial (T) and for the remain 2 patches, I had no other
choice than to assume they have been seen.

That's why I think that it's kind of a joke when someone asks to 
revert the whole patchset. 


*  1:  Formatting and whitespace changes
*  2:  Apply quality improvements
*  3:  Remove unused print_rational() pointer from 
*  4:  Rename name param to key for API consistency
*  5:  Re-use BPrint in loop  
*  6:  Introduce AVTextFormatOptions for avtext_context_open()
*  7:  Introduce common header and deduplicate code
*  8:  Use av_default_item_name
*  9:  Add flags param to function avtext_print_integer()
* 10:  Move some declaration to new header file
T 11:  Add avfilter_link_get_hw_frames_ctx()
  12:  Add resource manager files with build-time compression
T 13:  Make ms_from_ost() inline
  14:  Add execution graph printing

All fixes were targeting 14 only (and the Makefile from 12).
Looking just a tiny bit at the subject would have made this
clear.

In turn, anybody asking to revert "the patchset" is implicitly
admitting that he doesn't have the slightest idea about what
he's talking.

sw

_______________________________________________
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".