[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/file_open: log temp filename

Gyan ffmpeg at gyani.pro
Wed May 22 13:13:44 EEST 2019



On 22-05-2019 03:29 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:51 AM Gyan <ffmpeg at gyani.pro> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22-05-2019 02:29 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:53 AM Gyan <ffmpeg at gyani.pro> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 22-05-2019 01:41 PM, Liu Steven wrote:
>>>>>> 在 2019年5月22日,下午3:10,Gyan <ffmpeg at gyani.pro> 写道:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Helps users to identify temp files for a given instance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the longer term, we should aim to clean up all temp files.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gyan
>>>>>> <0001-avutil-file_open-log-temp-filename.patch>_______________________________________________
>>>>> Why don’t use AV_LOG_DEBUG or AV_LOG_TRACE?
>>>>>
>>>> DEBUG and TRACE are meant to record micro-ops for debugging purposes.
>>>> This message will be present a handful of times in the log and is
>>>> essential for end-users so they can delete these files, which ffmpeg
>>>> won't do, but should since these are meant to be temporary files.
>>>>
>>> Why don't we work on fixing this instead, as users will not know what
>>> implications this message has in any case and just consider it spam.
>> 1) A grep of the tree shows only two components make use of this
>> function. The cache protocol, which needs to be expressly invoked by the
>> user, and the xvid encoder in 2-pass mode, which also has to be
>> expressly invoked. No unsuspecting user will be presented with this message.
>>
>> 2) Fixing this is the ideal solution. The above two components already
>> unlink the file after use, but with cache:, the file remains available
>> after ffmpeg has exited. So this has to be looked at by someone
>> acquainted and able to test with all the environments that ffmpeg can be
>> run on. I don't have that knowledge or access. Till then, let's not the
>> perfect be the enemy of the good.
>>
> This message has absolutely zero indication that the user might need
> to act on it, nevermind that API users might never see it in the first
> place, as such I don't  see how this is even "good".
>
> Why don't you start with collecting information which systems are even
> affected by this? You must have some systems where you saw this.
This patch was prompted by a Windows user who wanted this info. As 
mentioned above, I can reproduce it with cache protocol on Windows. 
Don't have access to other systems, except one linux box.

I just saw that we do have a file delete function. Will first see if 
that works.

Gyan


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list