> From: ffmpeg-devel [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org] On Behalf > Of Mark Thompson > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2018 3:21 AM > To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] lavf: make overlay_qsv work > based on framesync > > On 03/04/18 02:50, Ruiling Song wrote: > > The existing version which was cherry-picked from Libav does not work > > with FFmpeg framework, because ff_request_frame() was totally > > different between Libav (recursive) and FFmpeg (non-recursive). > > The existing overlay_qsv implementation depends on the recursive > > version of ff_request_frame to trigger immediate call to request_frame() > on input pad. > > But this has been removed in FFmpeg since "lavfi: make request_frame() > non-recursive." > > Now that we have handy framesync support in FFmpeg, so I make it work > > based on framesync. Some other fixing which is also needed to make > > overlay_qsv work are put in a separate patch. > > > > v2: > > add .preinit field to initilize framesync options. > > export more options like vf_overlay.c > > > > Signed-off-by: Ruiling Song <ruiling.s...@intel.com> > > --- > > libavfilter/Makefile | 2 +- > > libavfilter/vf_overlay_qsv.c | 213 > > ++++++++++++++++--------------------------- > > 2 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 137 deletions(-) > > > On 03/04/18 02:50, Ruiling Song wrote: > > For filters based on framesync, the input frame was managed by > > framesync, so we should not directly keep and destroy it, instead we > > make a clone of it here, or else double-free will occur. > > But for other filters not based on framesync, we still need to free > > the input frame inside filter_frame. That's why I made this v2 to fix > > the side-effect on normal filters. > > > > v2: > > and one av_frame_free() in vf_vpp_qsv.c > > > > Signed-off-by: Ruiling Song <ruiling.s...@intel.com> > > --- > > libavfilter/qsvvpp.c | 4 ++-- > > libavfilter/vf_vpp_qsv.c | 5 ++++- > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > Tested, LGTM, set applied with one minor merge fixup - it collided with the > change to pass through unmodified frames directly. (Apologies for the > delay!) > > Shall I apply this to the 4.0 branch as well?
Yes, merging it to 4.0 branch is a good idea (qsv_overly is declared but not workable now). > > Thanks, > > - Mark _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
