Commit by Jamey Sharp and Josh Triplett.
Signed-off-by: Jamey Sharp ja...@minilop.net
Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org
---
dix/pixmap.c |7 ++-
exa/exa_classic.c|3 ---
exa/exa_driver.c |5 -
exa/exa_mixed.c |5 -
This replaces AllocatePixmap, which was previously called by the screen
hooks.
Commit by Jamey Sharp and Josh Triplett.
Signed-off-by: Jamey Sharp ja...@minilop.net
Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org
---
Xext/shm.c |5 +--
composite/compalloc.c
During last year's XDS, I started an experiment to see if resource
allocation and freeing could lose the horrible wrap/unwrap boilerplate.
As I recall, I got the idea from something keithp said: Create and Free
hooks could be implemented with callbacks.h instead.
I didn't finish that experiment,
ping. I didn't see anything as a followup to my comments below. I'm fine with
either approach, but I'd like to get this in soon.
On Sep 25, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Sep 25, 2011, at 10:50, Matt Turner wrote:
Dave pointed out that there are a couple drivers (sis,
Looks like the right way to me
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com
On Oct 1, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Jamey Sharp wrote:
Commit by Jamey Sharp and Josh Triplett.
Signed-off-by: Jamey Sharp ja...@minilop.net
Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org
---
dix/pixmap.c
This makes things look much cleaner too...
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com
On Oct 1, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Jamey Sharp wrote:
This replaces AllocatePixmap, which was previously called by the screen
hooks.
Commit by Jamey Sharp and Josh Triplett.
Signed-off-by: Jamey Sharp
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com
I think this series needs a Tested-by: though. I'll give it a go on Monday if
nobody beats me to it.
--Jeremy
On Oct 1, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Jamey Sharp wrote:
In the process, move reference counting into FreePixmap instead of
doing it
On Sep 26, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Keith Packard wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:14:57 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com
wrote:
Thanks for more eyes!
As always, I'm looking for rough consensus about this before I merge it
in; please let me know what you're looking for before it can
Since commit 59f9fb4b8c031df69b3592a26b77e744ff4a556e, when Luc
Verhaegen added an unconditional SYNC_CHECK in XAA_PIXMAP_OP_PROLOGUE,
these open-coded versions of SYNC_CHECK have been redundant.
In CopyPlane, NeedToSync was guaranteed to be FALSE, because if it
wasn't so on entry,
Since every fallback checks whether it needs to sync, just do it in the
prologue, like the pixmap ops do.
Signed-off-by: Jamey Sharp ja...@minilop.net
---
hw/xfree86/xaa/xaaFallback.c | 20
hw/xfree86/xaa/xaawrap.h |6 --
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 22
These are the only fallbacks that were ever choosing not to sync. This
patch makes them consistent with not only the other fallbacks, but also
with the pixmap fallbacks as of Luc Verhaegen's commit in 2008,
59f9fb4b8c031df69b3592a26b77e744ff4a556e.
Signed-off-by: Jamey Sharp ja...@minilop.net
---
I wrote these patches as part of an effort to make GC funcs and ops
per-screen instead of per-GC, but several people hated that plan.
I still think these particular patches are a good idea, though. They
should have no behavioral effect except the small changes mentioned in
the commit messages.
They were already doing nearly identical work, although now the ops may
short-circuit in the pixmap case if pGC-pCompositeClip is an empty
region; before, only the fallback ops could do that.
Signed-off-by: Jamey Sharp ja...@minilop.net
---
hw/xfree86/xaa/xaaFallback.c | 67 ++---
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 11:26:38PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Sep 26, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Keith Packard wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:14:57 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com
wrote:
Thanks for more eyes!
As always, I'm looking for rough consensus about this
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 03:14:12PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
So far we have:
* Martin Peres - Nouveau
* Alon Levy - Xspice
* Chris Wilson - Cairo
* Kai Uwe Behrmann - Colormanagement with compositors.
* Daniel Vetter - DRM futures.
Only a single speaker is still lacking, and because I
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 11:26:38PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Sep 26, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Keith Packard wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:14:57 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com
wrote:
Thanks for more eyes!
As always, I'm looking for rough consensus about this before I
5aa826cdd1f2e768bedf23d399703a5d0b6302be introduced this new test
without ignoring the build product.
Signed-off-by: Jamey Sharp ja...@minilop.net
---
test/.gitignore |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/.gitignore b/test/.gitignore
index 0e1ed42..4c0a231
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 11:20:25PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com
I think this series needs a Tested-by: though. I'll give it a go on
Monday if nobody beats me to it.
I'll hold off on requesting a pull, then. Thanks for the reviews!
Jamey
On Oct 2, 2011, at 00:10, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
Was the libpciaccess issue solved ?
You're referring to the missing support from libpciaccess, yes? I'm still
waiting on comments from my comments on those patches.
http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2011-September/025663.html
Peter, any thoughts on this?
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:01, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
I just realized I made (at least one) error in the inline functions I wrote
below. s/ 0/ 1/ ... there're probably others, but that just emphasizes my
point that there should be conversion routines rather than
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 01:11:50AM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Oct 2, 2011, at 00:10, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
Was the libpciaccess issue solved ?
You're referring to the missing support from libpciaccess, yes? I'm still
waiting on comments from my comments on those patches.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:53:25AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:10:29PM -0700, Jamey Sharp wrote:
I use these settings in my nested/dummy testing, which seem to suffice
for me:
Section ServerFlags
Option AutoEnableDevices false
Option AutoAddDevices
On Oct 2, 2011, at 00:49, Jamey Sharp wrote:
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 11:20:25PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com
I think this series needs a Tested-by: though. I'll give it a go on
Monday if nobody beats me to it.
I'll hold off on
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 18:51:39 +0200
Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote:
A Mesa/Gallium state of the art and perspectives would be awesome!
... but who will step up to do it?
The only way I can help: I hereby pledge to pay beer to any person who steps up
to talk about Gallium3D or Wayland at
Hi,
On 2 October 2011 08:17, Matthieu Herrb matthieu.he...@laas.fr wrote:
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 03:14:12PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
If you know that you are coming to FOSDEM, but for some reason think
that someone else should step up instead, then think again, and reply
ASAP.
Luc,
I
The following changes since commit afb1fe695d197187a301c19863a128a65389b15c:
Merge remote-tracking branch 'whot/next' (2011-09-26 20:24:15 -0700)
are available in the git repository at:
g...@github.com:Koba/xserver.git reviewed
Alexandr Shadchin (8):
bsd: Remove unused macros KBD_FD
From: Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 01:11:50 -0700
On Oct 2, 2011, at 00:10, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
Was the libpciaccess issue solved ?
You're referring to the missing support from libpciaccess, yes? I'm still
waiting on comments from my comments on
This adds support for the new smooth-scrolling valuator system to
the wheel emulation code.
Caveats:
- Enabling wheel emulation at runtime does not work if the device
does not provide the necessary axes already.
- Horizontal scrolling is always reported on the REL_HWHEEL axis,
ignoring a
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Jeremy Huddleston
jerem...@freedesktop.org wrote:
ping. I didn't see anything as a followup to my comments below. I'm fine
with either approach, but I'd like to get this in soon.
On Sep 25, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Sep 25, 2011, at
On Sun, 2011-10-02 at 00:38 -0700, Jamey Sharp wrote:
5aa826cdd1f2e768bedf23d399703a5d0b6302be introduced this new test
without ignoring the build product.
Signed-off-by: Jamey Sharp ja...@minilop.net
---
test/.gitignore |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff
Hi,
On 2 October 2011 09:19, Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com wrote:
Peter, any thoughts on this?
I think using * (1 16) * (1 16) is a better idea than (1ULL 32).
Cheers,
Daniel
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives:
On 10/2/11, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
On 2 October 2011 09:19, Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com wrote:
Peter, any thoughts on this?
I think using * (1 16) * (1 16) is a better idea than (1ULL 32).
And I think ldexp is a much better idea than either. :-) It's more
clear,
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5745
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com
---
src/xftfreetype.c |1 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/xftfreetype.c b/src/xftfreetype.c
index 3f8dfef..1c5967a 100644
--- a/src/xftfreetype.c
+++
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:55:35PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On 30 September 2011 17:18, Chase Douglas chase.doug...@canonical.com wrote:
On 09/29/2011 09:29 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
Using this call simplifies callers that don't know if the mask bit is set.
Before:
if
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 08:43:52AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Fixes Sun compiler warning:
xkbAccessX.c, line 128: warning: implicit function declaration:
init_device_event
Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
---
xkb/xkbAccessX.c |1 +
1 files changed, 1
I've added Alan's compiler warning fix to this branch.
New tip: 524e5445c0b6df5247d4aac5368470bb89ef4080
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:51:38AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
This is the now finally reviewed smooth scrolling branch and the raw events,
along with the new input ABI changes (which are
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 06:59:39AM -0400, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 08:55 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
for the patch but I wonder if this is really useful. With modular
releases
the katamari version doesn't mean that
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 10:52:03AM -0700, Jamey Sharp wrote:
On 10/2/11, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
On 2 October 2011 09:19, Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com wrote:
Peter, any thoughts on this?
I think using * (1 16) * (1 16) is a better idea than (1ULL 32).
And I
On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 09:25 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
The majorversion of 7 is pretty meaningless and the minor is partially
meaningless since we have releases that don't end up in a katamari. So
if in
doubt, I'd just go with the module name + release version and add the
release date for
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 09:18:54PM -0400, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 09:25 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
The majorversion of 7 is pretty meaningless and the minor is partially
meaningless since we have releases that don't end up in a katamari. So
if in
doubt, I'd just go
On Oct 2, 2011, at 16:30, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 10:52:03AM -0700, Jamey Sharp wrote:
On 10/2/11, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
On 2 October 2011 09:19, Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com wrote:
Peter, any thoughts on this?
I think using * (1 16) * (1
On Oct 2, 2011, at 07:51, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Jeremy Huddleston
jerem...@freedesktop.org wrote:
ping. I didn't see anything as a followup to my comments below. I'm fine
with either approach, but I'd like to get this in soon.
On Sep 25, 2011, at 11:22 AM,
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 22:16:42 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@freedesktop.org
wrote:
Ok, given your agreement here, I'll go ahead with this if you don't
beat me to it.
Thanks. I definitely prefer fixing the macros the 'right' way and then
making drivers deal with the API change. Leaving API
[snip]
Others will have an easier time
reviewing and merging your patch if you follow these guidelines:
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/Development/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
Will do, I just thought this would be ok for the RFC stage.
The only other patch required to make this useful for non-root
On 01/10/11 04:12, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
if ( (geteuid() != getuid()) ) {
It's not that simple to check for elevated privs in a world with
saved setids and other forms of privilege manipulation - issetugid() is
useful if it's available - for instance see:
45 matches
Mail list logo
