[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v2 4/8] ffmpeg: remove sub-frame warning

[wm4]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 22:15:12 +0100
Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 09:51:46PM +0100, wm4 wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 21:36:35 +0100
> > Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 08:44:41PM +0100, wm4 wrote:  
> > > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:37:25 +0100
> > > > Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > >     
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 06:06:37PM +0100, wm4 wrote:    
> > > > > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 17:51:11 +0100
> > > > > > Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > > > >       
> > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 02:02:11PM +0100, wm4 wrote:      
> > > > > > > > It's not practical to keep this with the new decode API.
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >  ffmpeg.c | 7 -------
> > > > > > > >  ffmpeg.h | 1 -
> > > > > > > >  2 files changed, 8 deletions(-)        
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > its not practical in ffmpeg.c but libavcodec should be able to easily
> > > > > > > check that a decoder which doesnt declare AV_CODEC_CAP_SUBFRAMES
> > > > > > > doesnt decode "subframes"
> > > > > > > Can you move this check into libavcodec ?
> > > > > > > i think otherwise nothing would be checking for missing
> > > > > > > AV_CODEC_CAP_SUBFRAMES anymore
> > > > > > >       
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What's the point of this check?      
> > > > > 
> > > > > to keep track of / detect the cases that put multiple decodable frames
> > > > > in a packet.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Whats the point of that?
> > > > > there where several IIRC
> > > > > one is that when too many frames are put in a packet 
> > > > > latency increases, another is that seeking granularity is worse
> > > > > (if its not even one packet for the whole file ...)    
> > > > 
> > > > It's true that too many frames in a packet isn't ideal, but that's not
> > > > what the code checks.
> > > > 
> > > > It checks if an audio decoder not marked with AV_CODEC_CAP_SUBFRAMES
> > > > consumes partial packets.    
> > > 
> > > yes, but a check that checks "if a decoder not marked with
> > > AV_CODEC_CAP_SUBFRAMES consumes partial packets". Is a simple and
> > > zero overhead way of detecting some (not all) cases where there are
> > > multiple frames in a packet. One cant look at a sequence of bytes
> > > that could be any arbitrary format/codec and say
> > > "thats more than 1 frame" it requires codec specific code,
> > > the decoders already do what is needed for some cases, for the others
> > > there is (please correct me if iam wrong which might be) no easy
> > > way except maybe running the parser if one exists over it but that
> > > would not be zero overhead
> > > 
> > >   
> > > > That might be useful as debug check in
> > > > libavcodec or so, or by properly reviewing patches for new decoders.    
> > > 
> > > Iam not sure if i understand what you mean exactly but this somehow
> > > sounds like an implication that people would not review patches
> > > properly.
> > > Thats a serious accusation if thats what was meant. Either there is
> > > a problem then it should be pointed to very specifically so it can be
> > > solved or such implications shouldnt be made at all.  
> > 
> > Well, I'm not sure what else this check is useful for. A new audio
> > decoder will need explicit code to handle multiframe audio by returning
> > the exact number of bytes parsed, instead of e.g.
> > "return avpkt->size;". So it should be pretty obvious whether a decoder
> > does this?  
> 
> yes, though there may be corner cases where it has to do that
> and it might be more robust.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Anyway, I could move this check to avcodec_decode_audio4(), would that
> > be ok?  
> 
> yes and thanks!
> 

So I actually tried this, and it turns out at least shorten (and maybe
many more codecs) raises this warning, because it doesn't set
AV_CODEC_CAP_SUBFRAMES. And nobody ever cared.

Give me a reason why I should, instead of sending a patch to deprecate
AV_CODEC_CAP_SUBFRAMES?