In the case an aggregator is created and pads are requested but only
linked later, we end up never updating the upstream latency.
This was because latency queries on pads that are not linked succeed,
so we never did a new query once a live source has been linked, so the
thread was never started.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=757548
The function needs to be unlocked if any data is received, but only
end the first buffer processing on an actual buffer, synchronized events
don't matter on the first buffer processing.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=781673
Allowing us to tell GstPad why we are failing an event, which might
be because we are 'flushing' even if the sinkpad is not in flush state
at that point.
Until now we would start the task when the pad is activated. Part of the
activiation concist of testing if the pipeline is live or not.
Unfortunatly, this is often too soon, as it's likely that the pad get
activated before it is fully linked in dynamic pipeline.
Instead, start the task when the first serialized event arrive. This is
a safe moment as we know that the upstream chain is complete and just
like the pad activation, the pads are locked, hence cannot change.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=757548
This fixes a race where we check if there is a clock, then it get
removed and we endup calling gst_clock_new_single_shot_id() with a NULL
pointer instead of a valid clock and also calling gst_object_unref()
with a NULL pointer later.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=757548
Previously, while allocating the pad number for a new pad, aggregator was
maintaining an interesting relationship between the pad count and the pad
number.
If you requested a sink pad called "sink_6", padcount (which is badly named and
actually means number-of-pads-minus-one) would be set to 6. Which means that if
you then requested a sink pad called "sink_0", it would be assigned the name
"sink_6" again, which fails the non-uniqueness test inside gstelement.c.
This can be fixed by instead setting padcount to be 7 in that case, but this
breaks manual management of pad names by the application since it then becomes
impossible to request a pad called "sink_2". Instead, we fix this by always
directly using the requested name as the sink pad name. Uniqueness of the pad
name is tested separately inside gstreamer core. If no name is requested, we use
the next available pad number.
Note that this is important since the sinkpad numbering in aggregator is not
meaningless. Videoaggregator uses it to decide the Z-order of video frames.
This code will never be called as max>=min in all cases. If the upstream
latency query returned min>max, the function already returned and all
values that are added to those have max>= min.
Not all aggregator subclasses will have a single pad template called sink_%u
and might do something special depending on what the application requests.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=757018
Otherwise they will receive a QOS event that has earliest_time=0 (because we
can't have negative timestamps), and consider their buffer as too late
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=754356
In the case where you have a source giving the GstAggregator smaller
buffers than it uses, when it reaches a timeout, it will consume the
first buffer, then try to read another buffer for the pad. If the
previous element is not fast enough, it may get the next buffer even
though it may be queued just before. To prevent that race, the easiest
solution is to move the queue inside the GstAggregatorPad itself. It
also means that there is no need for strange code cause by increasing
the min latency without increasing the max latency proportionally.
This also means queuing the synchronized events and possibly acting
on them on the src task.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=745768
Before aggregator based elements always started at running time 0,
now it's possible to select the first input buffer running time or
explicitly set a start-time value.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=749966
Adding a pad will add a new upstream that might have a bigger minimum latency,
so we might have to wait longer. Or it might be the first live upstream, in
which case we will have to start deadline based aggregation.
Removing a pad will remove a new upstream that might have had the biggest
latency, so we can now stop waiting a bit earlier. Or it might be the last
live upstream, in which case we can stop deadline based aggregation.
