> On Jul 8, 2024, at 22:07, Timo Rothenpieler <t...@rothenpieler.org> wrote:
>
> On 08.07.2024 09:43, Zhao Zhili wrote:
>> From: Zhao Zhili <zhiliz...@tencent.com>
>> av_executor_execute run the task directly when thread is disabled.
>> The task can schedule a new task by call av_executor_execute. This
>> forms an implicit recursive call. This patch removed the recursive
>> call.
>> ---
>> libavutil/executor.c | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>> diff --git a/libavutil/executor.c b/libavutil/executor.c
>> index 89058fab2f..c145c51be9 100644
>> --- a/libavutil/executor.c
>> +++ b/libavutil/executor.c
>> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ struct AVExecutor {
>> int die;
>> AVTask *tasks;
>> + int stack_depth;
>> };
>> static AVTask* remove_task(AVTask **prev, AVTask *t)
>> @@ -207,8 +208,12 @@ void av_executor_execute(AVExecutor *e, AVTask *t)
>> }
>> if (!e->thread_count || !HAVE_THREADS) {
>> + if (e->stack_depth > 0)
>> + return;
>> + e->stack_depth++;
>> // We are running in a single-threaded environment, so we must
>> handle all tasks ourselves
>> while (run_one_task(e, e->local_contexts))
>> /* nothing */;
>> + e->stack_depth--;
>
> Won't this put the above line into the "nothing" while-loop?
> Is that intended? If so, the indentation should be adjusted accordingly.
> If not, the while-loop should gain empty {}.
The comment specify it’s a while loop with empty body. Maybe it’s not obvious
in the email client.
>
>> }
>> }
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
