Jan 22, 2020, 16:44 by an...@khirnov.net: > Quoting Lynne (2020-01-21 21:52:52) > >> Jan 21, 2020, 18:22 by an...@khirnov.net: >> >> Its size too? Didn't know that. >> >> I do think its a good idea to be able to append fields to it, so I've >> >> added a av_vk_frame_alloc() function. I've followed what >> >> av_frame_alloc is called, though I'm not sure if its too close to that >> >> one's name. >> >> >> > >> > My original intent with this API was that calles are allowed to provide >> > their own pools. Not sure if that's still allowed or works though. But >> > if it is, the caller needs to be able to allocate/free AVkFrame. >> > >> >> They are of course. The first wip of the cuda interop exploited that IIRC. >> But I think the issue is that in order for API users to make their own >> pools they need to know the size in bytes of AVVkFrame since that's >> what av_buffer_create() accepts. >> I could make a function to return that, but I'm wondering if its >> somewhat too big of a mess already. >> I could instead reserve some memory in the struct, a few hundred bytes >> would be enough since every Vulkan object has to be allocated on heap. >> > > The requirement for av_buffer_create() is just formal here, we shouldn't > let it guide our API design (ideally we'd make a standalone refcount > type and stop abusing AVBuffer for it). You can just pass sizeof(void*) > to it. Or make av_vk_frame_alloc() write sizeof(AVVkFrame) into a > supplied pointer, if you want to be really proper about it. >
So is the API good now? _______________________________________________ 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".
