On 9/11/16, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/10/16, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: >> Le quartidi 24 fructidor, an CCXXIV, Paul B Mahol a ecrit : >>> So everybody agrees, we should proceed. >> >> I am proceeding, but as you can see in the patch, there is still a fair >> amount of work to be done. Still, people can help if they want to speed >> things up, especially since a significant part of the work is design >> decisions that I can not do alone and will need to be discussed. >> >> What needs to be done (using this mail as a notepad, but including the >> tasks >> where help is required): >> >> - Finish documenting the scheduling and make sure the implementation >> matches >> the documentation. >> >> - Discuss if "private_fields.h" is acceptable or decide another solution. >> >> - Clearly identify and isolate the parts of the scheduling that are >> needed >> only for request_frame()/request_frame() compatibility. >> >> - Decide exactly what parts of the scheduling are the responsibility of >> filters (possibly in the compatibility activate function) and what >> parts >> are handled by the framework. >> >> - Think ahead about threading and use wrapper to access fields that will >> require locking or synchronization. >> >> - Think about features whose need I realized while trying to get it >> working: >> distinguish productive / processing activation, synchronize several >> filter >> graphs. >> >> Please feel free to ask details about any of these points: not only would >> getting interest help me stay motivated, but discussing implementation >> details and explaining the design would help me having a clear idea of >> the >> whole system. > > For start removal of recursiveness is mostly I'm interested in. > What needs to be done for that, can I help somehow? >
Hi, So what's remain to be done to have frame threading in lavfi? _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
