In this mode we accept previously set filter caps until
upstream renegotiates to something that is compatible
to the current filter caps.
This allows dynamic caps changes in the pipeline even
if there is a queue between any conversion element
and the capsfilter. Without this we would get not-negotiated
errors if timing is bad.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=739002
Make pipe socket non-blocking, so we don't
end up being blocked in a write on the pipe
while the src is eos and not reading data
any more, and thus we never unblock and never
notice that we're done. This would happen
quite reliably on the rpi.
When no data is coming from sinkpads and eos events
arrived at one of the sinkpad, funnel forwards the EOS
event to downstream. It forwards the EOS because lastsink pad
is NULL. Also the unit testcase of the funnel is not checking
the correct behavior as it should. The unit test case should
fail if one of the sink pad has already EOS present on it and
we are trying to push one more EOS.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=731716
From the test case:
/* This test creates a multiqueue with 2 streams. One receives
* a constant flow of buffers, the other only gets one buffer, and then
* new-segment events, and returns not-linked. The multiqueue should not fill.
*/
If one of the queues goes EOS and the other returns NOT_LINKED the stream
can be considerered EOS as a NOT_LINKED means that one of the branches has no
sink downstream that will block the EOS message posting.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=725917
The check itself is racy.
(CK_FORK=no GST_CHECK=test_output_order make elements/multiqueue.forever).
The problem is indeed the test and not the actual element behaviour.
The objects to push are being pulled out of the single internal queues in the
right order and at the right time...
But between:
* the moment the global multiqueue lock is released (which was used to detect
if we should pop and push downstream the next buffer)
* and the moment it is received by the source pad (which does the check)
=> another single queue (like the unlinked pad) might pop and push a buffer
downstream
What should we do ? Putting a bigger margin of error (say 5 buffers) doesn't
help, it'll eventually fail.
I can't see how we can detect this reliably.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708661
Implement the same behaviour as gst_pad_push_event when pushing sticky events
fails, that is don't fail immediately but fail when data flow resumes and upstream
can aggregate properly.
This fixes segment seeks with decodebin and unlinked audio or video branches.
Fixes: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=687899
Make it so that one can specify a buffer for get/pull_range where the downstream
element should write into. When passing NULL, upstream should allocate a buffer,
like in 0.10.
We also need to change the probes a little because before the pull probe, there
could already be a buffer passed. This then allows us to use the same PROBE
macro for before and after pulling.
While we're at the probes, make the query probe more powerful by handling the
GST_PAD_PROBE_DROP return value. Returning _DROP from a query probe will now
return TRUE upstream and will not forward the probe to the peer or handler.
Also handle _DROP for get/pull_range properly by not dispatching to the
peer/handler or by generating EOS when the probe returns DROP and no buffer.
Make filesrc handle the non-NULL buffer passed in the get_range function and
skip the allocation in that case, writing directly into the downstream provided
buffer.
Update tests because now we need to make sure to not pass a random value in the
buffer pointer to get/pull_range
