Hi all,
Just a small note:
On 5 February 2016 at 08:42, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> umm, do we really want to add even more uses of the Mesa-private wl_drm
> protocol outside of Mesa? Though it seems that ship sailed a long time
> ago.
>
> Should we just bite the bullet, and
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just a small note:
>
> On 5 February 2016 at 08:42, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
>> umm, do we really want to add even more uses of the Mesa-private wl_drm
>> protocol outside of Mesa?
On 10 February 2016 at 17:08, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Emil Velikov
> wrote:
>> On 5 February 2016 at 08:42, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>>
>>> umm, do we really want to add even more uses of the
I don't necessarily have an opinion either way, but do note that since
VGEM isn't here yet, this change will break using Xwayland under a
free VM. We should fall back to wl_shm in any case.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On 10 February 2016 at 17:08,
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:10:04 +0100
Rui Matos wrote:
> This should be both more efficient and avoid the file descriptor
> exhaustion issue that can happen with shm buffers if we're asked to
> realize more cursors than the file descriptor limit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rui Matos
On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 13:13:16 +0100
Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > Btw. Rui, is there a reason to keep the shm pool fd open after a
> > wl_buffer has been created from it? Most trivial demos just
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> Btw. Rui, is there a reason to keep the shm pool fd open after a
> wl_buffer has been created from it? Most trivial demos just close the
> fd and destroy the pool once a wl_buffer has been created, keeping only
> the
This should be both more efficient and avoid the file descriptor
exhaustion issue that can happen with shm buffers if we're asked to
realize more cursors than the file descriptor limit.
Signed-off-by: Rui Matos
---
On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Kristian Høgsberg
On 4 February 2016 at 17:10, Rui Matos wrote:
> This should be both more efficient and avoid the file descriptor
> exhaustion issue that can happen with shm buffers if we're asked to
> realize more cursors than the file descriptor limit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rui Matos