[FFmpeg-devel] udp.c comments/thoughts
Andrey Utkin
me at andrey-utkin.pp.ua
Mon Jan 6 23:32:33 CET 2014
On 06.01.2014 21:37, Roger Pack wrote:
> On 1/6/14, Roger Pack <rogerdpack2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello. I noticed that in udp.c sometimes (with pthread cancel
>> enabled) it says "Part of datagram lost due to insufficient buffer
>> size" (I think what it meant to say is due to insufficient read
>> request size?)
No principal difference. But we could somewhat improve log message with
user-friendly advice, if possible. I haven't check deeply this at the
moment.
>> Also it's quite confusing that fifo_size is in multiples of 188.
>> Unless you an MPEG engineer, nobody anticipates this. I might suggest
>> adding another setting of "fifo_size_bytes" or something so that
>> people realize there's a difference.
Yep, confusing. Historical issue.
"fifo_size_bytes" sounds a sort of humiliating for this proper option,
comparing to ugly "fifo_size" option taking multiples of 188. Maybe some
more "respectful" name could be found?
>> Also I've noticed that the default RECV buffer size is 64K by default
>> for udp packets. I might suggest increasing this substantially, as
>> this is far too little for many streams, and the OS can typically
>> handle far higher (1M-10MB at least).
Are there any official documents regulating allowed UDP packet sizes? Or
you tell us what happens to work with current Linux? Maximum which i
have seen in nature was 0xffff bytes via IPv4 loopback interface.
> Also as a follow-up, perhaps overrun_nonfatal should be default, since
> it's basically just dropping packets, which UDP by default can do and
> does anyway (so currently it behaves slightly differently with pthread
> cancel enabled than otherwise, which is somewhat confusing).
Makes sense, but the default state of this option was chosen in a way
not breaking previous behaviour.
I am ashamed now that i've named this option "overrun_nonfatal", the
option should be without negation - e.g. "overrun_fatal", with inverted
values.
> Also is av_fifo_peek stable? Might it not accidentally return you a
> memory address that allows you to read past the end of the circular
> buffer, if you read too far?
av_fifo_peek2 seems ugly to me. Peek capability requires another
interface to be usable. At last such interface is not friendly.
--
Andrey Utkin
More information about the ffmpeg-devel
mailing list