On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Muhammad Faiz <mfc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:09 AM, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 23:52:04 +0700 >> > Muhammad Faiz <mfc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> when frame is received, not from other threads. >> >> >> >> Should fix fate failure with THREADS>=4: >> >> make fate-h264-attachment-631 THREADS=4 >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Faiz <mfc...@gmail.com> >> >> --- >> >> libavcodec/pthread_frame.c | 4 ++++ >> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/libavcodec/pthread_frame.c b/libavcodec/pthread_frame.c >> >> index 13d6828..c452ed7 100644 >> >> --- a/libavcodec/pthread_frame.c >> >> +++ b/libavcodec/pthread_frame.c >> >> @@ -547,6 +547,10 @@ int ff_thread_decode_frame(AVCodecContext *avctx, >> >> >> >> fctx->next_finished = finished; >> >> >> >> + /* if frame is returned, properly set err from the thread that >> return frame */ >> >> + if (*got_picture_ptr) >> >> + err = p->result; >> >> + >> >> /* return the size of the consumed packet if no error occurred */ >> >> if (err >= 0) >> >> err = avpkt->size; >> > >> > Well, the logic confuses me. Does this override an earlier set err >> > value? >> >> Yes, because an earlier set err value may be from a different thread. >> >> >Could err be set to the correct value in the first place (inside >> > of the loop)? >> >> No, it was intended on 32a5b631267 > > > Thanks for working on this. It's good to get more people familiar with this > code. > > So, I'm looking at understanding this, you're trying to fix the case where > during draining, we may iterate over >1 worker thread cases where the first > returned an error code without having decoded a frame, and the second > decoded a frame without returning an error code, right? The current code > would return a frame with an error return code, which I believe is then > ignored by the user thread. > > So, you're basically trying to say that instead, we should ignore the > error. I agree that fixes the issue of md5 mismatch w/ vs. w/o threads, but > I doubt that it's fundamentally more correct, because the user thread still > misses out on error codes from the worker threads. Wouldn't you agree that > we should - even during draining - not iterate over N threads, but just the > next thread, and return either an error or a decoded frame, and keep doing > that until all worker threads are flushed, which we can then signal e.g. by > return=0 and *got_picture_ptr=0?
The problem is that return<0 and *got_picture_ptr==0 is also considered as eof when avpkt->size==0. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
