-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 308
Add vaSyncSurface2 with timeout #407
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
1423abe
to
5027911
Compare
5027911
to
c05883c
Compare
c05883c
to
a8be2b1
Compare
@XinfengZhang , @dmitryermilov , do you have any other suggestions ? |
a8be2b1
to
d5e4182
Compare
d5e4182
to
c4c85f6
Compare
c4c85f6
to
63d6c12
Compare
63d6c12
to
1b8ec24
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
@dvrogozh , @xhaihao , @XinfengZhang , @dmitry-gurulev , @wyc55069407, Please give your input: do we need VA_TIMEOUT_INFINITE here? |
I think VA_TIMEOUT_INFINITE can be defined as max(uint64_t) or uint64_t(-1) at va.h. And add comments in the new libva interface to show this value is specific to infinite. When you updated va.h. i'll update intel/media-driver#943 & intel/media-driver#945 |
1b8ec24
to
4a2f9b0
Compare
Fixes intel#397 Signed-off-by: Dmitry Ermilov <dmitry.ermilov@intel.com>
VAStatus vaSyncSurface2 ( | ||
VADisplay dpy, | ||
VASurfaceID surface, | ||
uint64_t timeout_ns |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should we care about infinite wait? maybe int64_t is more suitable, negative value mean infinite?
Fixes #397
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Ermilov dmitry.ermilov@intel.com