Hi Jonas,
On 21 November 2016 at 05:56, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:38:51AM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> On 10 November 2016 at 06:08, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:42:59PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> That relies on
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:38:51AM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10 November 2016 at 06:08, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:42:59PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> The intent of moving blocking from SwapBuffers to get_back_bo, was to
> >> avoid
Hi,
On 10 November 2016 at 06:08, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:42:59PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> The intent of moving blocking from SwapBuffers to get_back_bo, was to
>> avoid unnecessary triple-buffering by ensuring that the compositor had
>> fully
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:42:59PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> This reverts commit 25cc889004aad6d1cab9edd76db898658e347b97, though
> since the code has changed, it was applied manually.
>
> The intent of moving blocking from SwapBuffers to get_back_bo, was to
> avoid unnecessary
On 31/10/16 09:30 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
On 24 October 2016 at 20:42, Daniel Stone wrote:
This reverts commit 25cc889004aad6d1cab9edd76db898658e347b97, though
since the code has changed, it was applied manually.
The intent of moving blocking from SwapBuffers to
On 24 October 2016 at 20:42, Daniel Stone wrote:
> This reverts commit 25cc889004aad6d1cab9edd76db898658e347b97, though
> since the code has changed, it was applied manually.
>
> The intent of moving blocking from SwapBuffers to get_back_bo, was to
> avoid unnecessary
This reverts commit 25cc889004aad6d1cab9edd76db898658e347b97, though
since the code has changed, it was applied manually.
The intent of moving blocking from SwapBuffers to get_back_bo, was to
avoid unnecessary triple-buffering by ensuring that the compositor had
fully processed the previous frame