Index: webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/source/rtcp_receiver.cc |
diff --git a/webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/source/rtcp_receiver.cc b/webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/source/rtcp_receiver.cc |
index 732772c9f7a32cf1dcc3944469771b79b5ef56e9..2c050b02d6ab506f0db1bf860bef294a875082ac 100644 |
--- a/webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/source/rtcp_receiver.cc |
+++ b/webrtc/modules/rtp_rtcp/source/rtcp_receiver.cc |
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ RTCPReceiver::RTCPReceiver( |
RtcpPacketTypeCounterObserver* packet_type_counter_observer, |
RtcpBandwidthObserver* rtcp_bandwidth_observer, |
RtcpIntraFrameObserver* rtcp_intra_frame_observer, |
+ TransportFeedbackObserver* transport_feedback_observer, |
ModuleRtpRtcpImpl* owner) |
: TMMBRHelp(), |
_clock(clock), |
@@ -47,6 +48,7 @@ RTCPReceiver::RTCPReceiver( |
CriticalSectionWrapper::CreateCriticalSection()), |
_cbRtcpBandwidthObserver(rtcp_bandwidth_observer), |
_cbRtcpIntraFrameObserver(rtcp_intra_frame_observer), |
+ _cbTransportFeedbackObserver(transport_feedback_observer), |
_criticalSectionRTCPReceiver( |
CriticalSectionWrapper::CreateCriticalSection()), |
main_ssrc_(0), |
@@ -350,6 +352,9 @@ RTCPReceiver::IncomingRTCPPacket(RTCPPacketInformation& rtcpPacketInformation, |
// generic application messages |
HandleAPPItem(*rtcpParser, rtcpPacketInformation); |
break; |
+ case RTCPPacketTypes::kTransportFeedback: |
+ HandleTransportFeedback(rtcpParser, &rtcpPacketInformation); |
+ break; |
default: |
rtcpParser->Iterate(); |
break; |
@@ -1253,6 +1258,17 @@ void RTCPReceiver::HandleAPPItem(RTCPUtility::RTCPParserV2& rtcpParser, |
rtcpParser.Iterate(); |
} |
+void RTCPReceiver::HandleTransportFeedback( |
+ RTCPUtility::RTCPParserV2* rtcp_parser, |
+ RTCPHelp::RTCPPacketInformation* rtcp_packet_information) { |
+ rtcp::RtcpPacket* packet = rtcp_parser->ReleaseRtcpPacket(); |
+ DCHECK(packet != nullptr); |
+ rtcp_packet_information->rtcpPacketTypeFlags |= kRtcpTransportFeedback; |
stefan-webrtc
2015/09/17 10:33:19
I find it a bit strange that we use this flag when
sprang_webrtc
2015/09/17 15:08:28
Yeah. I'm just following suit. Definitely the whol
stefan-webrtc
2015/09/18 10:57:23
I think we have to outline how this is going to lo
sprang_webrtc
2015/09/21 10:44:10
Why would we want to end up somewhere suboptimal?
stefan-webrtc
2015/09/21 11:13:16
I mostly meant that we probably should have an ide
|
+ rtcp_packet_information->transport_feedback_.reset( |
+ static_cast<rtcp::TransportFeedback*>(packet)); |
+ |
+ rtcp_parser->Iterate(); |
+} |
int32_t RTCPReceiver::UpdateTMMBR() { |
int32_t numBoundingSet = 0; |
uint32_t bitrate = 0; |
@@ -1322,11 +1338,11 @@ void RTCPReceiver::TriggerCallbacksFromRTCPPacket( |
local_ssrc = main_ssrc_; |
} |
if (!receiver_only_ && |
- rtcpPacketInformation.rtcpPacketTypeFlags & kRtcpSrReq) { |
+ (rtcpPacketInformation.rtcpPacketTypeFlags & kRtcpSrReq)) { |
_rtpRtcp.OnRequestSendReport(); |
} |
if (!receiver_only_ && |
- rtcpPacketInformation.rtcpPacketTypeFlags & kRtcpNack) { |
+ (rtcpPacketInformation.rtcpPacketTypeFlags & kRtcpNack)) { |
if (rtcpPacketInformation.nackSequenceNumbers.size() > 0) { |
LOG(LS_VERBOSE) << "Incoming NACK length: " |
<< rtcpPacketInformation.nackSequenceNumbers.size(); |
@@ -1377,6 +1393,17 @@ void RTCPReceiver::TriggerCallbacksFromRTCPPacket( |
now); |
} |
} |
+ if (_cbTransportFeedbackObserver && |
+ (rtcpPacketInformation.rtcpPacketTypeFlags & kRtcpTransportFeedback)) { |
+ uint32_t media_source_ssrc = |
+ rtcpPacketInformation.transport_feedback_->GetMediaSourceSsrc(); |
+ if (media_source_ssrc == main_ssrc_ || |
+ registered_ssrcs_.find(media_source_ssrc) != |
+ registered_ssrcs_.end()) { |
+ _cbTransportFeedbackObserver->OnTransportFeedback( |
+ *rtcpPacketInformation.transport_feedback_.get()); |
+ } |
+ } |
} |
if (!receiver_only_) { |