Hi Wan-Teh,
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Wan-Teh Chang wrote:
> Hi Ronald,
>
> Thank you for the quick reply.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Ronald S. Bultje
> wrote:
> > Hi Wan-Teh,
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Wan-Teh Chang wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Ronald,
> >>
> >> I have a
Hi Ronald,
Thank you for the quick reply.
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi Wan-Teh,
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Wan-Teh Chang wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ronald,
>>
>> I have a question about this patch.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Ronald S. Bultje
>> wrote:
Hi Wan-Teh,
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Wan-Teh Chang wrote:
> Hi Ronald,
>
> I have a question about this patch.
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Ronald S. Bultje
> wrote:
> > This tries to handle cases where separate invocations of decode_frame()
> > (each running in separate threads)
Hi Ronald,
I have a question about this patch.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> This tries to handle cases where separate invocations of decode_frame()
> (each running in separate threads) write to respective fields in the
> same AVFrame->data[]. Having per-field owners
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Ronald S. Bultje
wrote:
> This tries to handle cases where separate invocations of decode_frame()
> (each running in separate threads) write to respective fields in the
> same AVFrame->data[]. Having per-field owners makes interaction between
> readers (the r
This tries to handle cases where separate invocations of decode_frame()
(each running in separate threads) write to respective fields in the
same AVFrame->data[]. Having per-field owners makes interaction between
readers (the referencing thread) and writers (the decoding thread)
slightly more optim
