<pre>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 3:39 PM
> To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>; Laurent
> Pinchart via libcamera-devel <libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org>; Suhrid
> Subramaniam <Suhrid.Subramaniam@mediatek.com>
> Cc: libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org
> Subject: Re: [libcamera-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] libcamera: pipeline: converter:
> return unique converter only if Valid
>
> Quoting Laurent Pinchart via libcamera-devel (2023-02-28 23:13:12)
> > Hi Suhrid,
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 06:14:58PM +0000, Suhrid Subramaniam wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Suhrid Subramaniam
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 10:04 AM
> > > > To: Paul Elder <paul.elder@ideasonboard.com>; Suhrid Subramaniam
> > > > <suhridsubramaniam@gmail.com>
> > > > Cc: libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [libcamera-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] libcamera: pipeline:
> converter:
> > > > return unique converter only if Valid
> > > >
> > > > Hi Paul,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for reviewing the patch.
> > > > Okay, I'll squash both patches.
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Paul Elder <paul.elder@ideasonboard.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 11:06 PM
> > > > > To: Suhrid Subramaniam <suhridsubramaniam@gmail.com>
> > > > > Cc: libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org; Suhrid Subramaniam
> > > > > <Suhrid.Subramaniam@mediatek.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [libcamera-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] libcamera: pipeline:
> > > > converter:
> > > > > return unique converter only if Valid
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 02:49:10PM -0800, Suhrid Subramaniam via
> > > > > libcamera-devel wrote:
> > > > > > - Use isValid() to check if m2m_ exists for the selected converter_.
> > > > > > - create an instance of the converter only if it is Valid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Suhrid Subramaniam
> > > > <suhrid.subramaniam@mediatek.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > src/libcamera/converter.cpp | 7 ++++---
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/src/libcamera/converter.cpp
> > > > > > b/src/libcamera/converter.cpp index 3de39cff..8a34d068 100644
> > > > > > --- a/src/libcamera/converter.cpp
> > > > > > +++ b/src/libcamera/converter.cpp
> > > > > > @@ -207,8 +207,9 @@
> > > > ConverterFactoryBase::ConverterFactoryBase(const
> > > > > std::string name, std::initiali
> > > > > > * \param[in] media Name of the factory
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > * \return A unique pointer to a new instance of the
> > > > > > converter subclass
> > > > > > - * corresponding to the named factory or one of its alias.
> > > > > > Otherwise a null
> > > > > > - * pointer if no such factory exists
> > > > > > + * corresponding to the named factory or one of its alias if
> > > > > > + the converter
> > > > > > + * instance is valid (checked using isValid()). Otherwise a
> > > > > > + null pointer
> > > > > > + * if no such factory exists
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > std::unique_ptr<Converter>
> > > > > > ConverterFactoryBase::create(MediaDevice
> > > > > > *media) { @@ -227,7 +228,7 @@ std::unique_ptr<Converter>
> > > > > > ConverterFactoryBase::create(MediaDevice *media) <<
> > > > > > factory->name_ << " factory with "
> > > > > > << (it == compatibles.end() ? "no" : media->driver())
> > > > > << "
> > > > > > alias.";
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -return factory->createInstance(media);
> > > > > > +return factory->createInstance(media)->isValid() ?
> > > > > > +factory->createInstance(media) : nullptr;
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, I see, you want to move the isValid() check here. I think
> > > > > you can just squash this patch into the previous one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also you're creating two instances if it is valid. I suppose the
> > > > > first one does get deconstructed immediately, but still I don't
> > > > > think it's a good
> > > > idea.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Understood.
> > > > So does it make sense to do the following? Or is there a better
> > > > method you'd recommend?
> > > >
> > > > << (it == compatibles.end() ? "no" : media->driver()) << "
> > > > alias.";
> > > >
> > > > + converter_ = factory->createInstance(media);
> > > > -return factory->createInstance(media);
> > > > +return converter_ ? converter_->isValid() : nullptr;
> > >
> > > Oops, I meant:
> > > +return converter_->isValid() ? converter_ : nullptr;
> >
> > That looks good. As Paul said, I would squash the two patches together.
> > Otherwise you're introducing a bug in patch 1/2 that you then fix in
> > 2/2.


While trying to compile and check if this works, I came across an interesting compile error regarding unique pointer ownership.
I'd to modify the code to use std::move() as follows:

+ converter_ = factory->createInstance(media);
+ return converter_->isValid() ? std::move(converter_) : nullptr;

I hope this is okay.

Secondly,
Instead of nullptr, shouldn't we return an empty object of Converter unique pointer?

- return nullptr
+ return std::unique_ptr<Converter>()


>
> Indeed, I believe I originally suggested this patch could preceed the other so
> that wouldn't happen - but I'm fine with them being squashed too.
>
> --
> Kieran
>
>
Hi Kieran,
Got it. I'll squash the patches : )

> >
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > return nullptr;
> >
> > Could you please drop this from mails sent to public mailing lists ?
> > Technically, it prevents us from merging your code.

Yep, done. Sorry about that!
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Laurent Pinchart

</pre><!--type:text--><!--{--><pre>************* MEDIATEK Confidentiality Notice ********************
The information contained in this e-mail message (including any 
attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise
exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended to be 
conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, dissemination, 
distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this e-mail (including its 
attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may 
be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or believe 
that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender 
immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of 
this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do not
disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!
</pre><!--}-->