On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Francois Gouget wrote: > The checks would lead the reader to think these functions can be called when bit rate control is off when in fact they are only called when it is active. > > Signed-off-by: Francois Gouget <fgouget@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > This patch stands on its own and I think it makes sense even if the > remainder of the series is not applied. It seemed ok in round 1 so > again no change this time around. Let me know if it needs further > refinements for inclusion. This patch was acked a while ago but has not been committed yet. Does it need changes? Should I drop it from the series? (Same thing for the next one, 2/12) http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/2015-May/019843.html > server/mjpeg_encoder.c | 9 +++------ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/server/mjpeg_encoder.c b/server/mjpeg_encoder.c > index 12447da..95d841f 100644 > --- a/server/mjpeg_encoder.c > +++ b/server/mjpeg_encoder.c > @@ -607,9 +607,7 @@ static void mjpeg_encoder_adjust_params_to_bit_rate(MJpegEncoder *encoder) > uint32_t latency = 0; > uint32_t src_fps; > > - if (!encoder->rate_control_is_active) { > - return; > - } > + spice_assert(encoder->rate_control_is_active); > > rate_control = &encoder->rate_control; > quality_eval = &rate_control->quality_eval_data; > @@ -694,9 +692,8 @@ static void mjpeg_encoder_adjust_fps(MJpegEncoder *encoder, uint64_t now) > MJpegEncoderRateControl *rate_control = &encoder->rate_control; > uint64_t adjusted_fps_time_passed; > > - if (!encoder->rate_control_is_active) { > - return; > - } > + spice_assert(encoder->rate_control_is_active); > + > adjusted_fps_time_passed = (now - rate_control->adjusted_fps_start_time) / 1000 / 1000; > > if (!rate_control->during_quality_eval && > -- > 2.1.4 -- Francois Gouget <fgouget@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel