@@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ static QSVFrame *submit_frame(QSVVPPContext *s, AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *p
av_log(ctx, AV_LOG_ERROR, "QSVVPP gets a wrong frame.\n");
return NULL;
}
- qsv_frame->frame = picref;
+ qsv_frame->frame = av_frame_clone(picref);
qsv_frame->surface = (mfxFrameSurface1 *)qsv_frame->frame->data[3];
} else {
/* make a copy if the input is not padded as libmfx requires */
@@ -318,7 +318,7 @@ static QSVFrame *submit_frame(QSVVPPContext *s, AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *p
av_frame_copy_props(qsv_frame->frame, picref);
av_frame_free(&picref);
} else
- qsv_frame->frame = picref;
+ qsv_frame->frame = av_frame_clone(picref);
if (map_frame_to_surface(qsv_frame->frame,
&qsv_frame->surface_internal) < 0) {
@@ -707,7 +707,7 @@ int ff_qsvvpp_filter_frame(QSVVPPContext *s, AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *picr
if (ret < 0 && ret != MFX_ERR_MORE_SURFACE) {
/* Ignore more_data error */
if (ret == MFX_ERR_MORE_DATA)
- ret = AVERROR(EAGAIN);
+ ret = 0;
break;
}
we should clone the frame, which is managed by the framework. directly assign it will cause double-free issue when qsv try to free it. In fact, the frames was managed by the framework! Right now, I am still not quite sure why we receive 'more data' error from libmfx. But some simple debugging seems that it is non-sense. so just skip it totally, not bothering to return a EAGAIN error to the caller. Signed-off-by: Ruiling Song <ruiling.song@intel.com> --- libavfilter/qsvvpp.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)