On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM, James Jones jajo...@nvidia.com wrote:
On Sunday 05 December 2010 20:31:24 Owen Taylor wrote:
...
But I can't say that I'm at all happy the idea that we'll have two sets of
drivers, one where flushing rendering enables an implicit fence for
subsequent rendering
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 16:54 -0800, James Jones wrote:
[ In terms of GNOME 3 and NVIDIA: If it's *that* slow to update clip lists
for a GLX window, then just save the last one you got, and during
ValidateTree memcmp() and if nothing changed, don't do anything. Can't be
more than 20 lines
James Jones jajo...@nvidia.com writes:
On Sunday 05 December 2010 20:31:24 Owen Taylor wrote:
[...]
Something like this was the first thing that came to mind (well, not the
sequence number, since those are per-client, but say associating an XSync
counter with the damage object.) I don't think
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 13:08 -0800, James Jones wrote:
On Friday 03 December 2010 11:16:43 am Owen Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 10:13 -0800, James Jones wrote:
I wrote a slide deck on synchronization and presentation ideas for X a
year ago or so before starting this work:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 09:40 -0800, James Jones wrote:
As I mentioned early on, I really want to get the fence sync work in server
1.10. The server code was reviewed by Adam Jackson (thanks for sifting
through all that) and various nvidians, but I still haven't received any
external
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 10:13 -0800, James Jones wrote:
I wrote a slide deck on synchronization and presentation ideas for X a year
ago or so before starting this work:
http://people.freedesktop.org/~aplattner/x-presentation-and-
synchronization.pdf
Aaron presented it at XDevConf last
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:16:43 -0500, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
It's perhaps especially problematic in the case of the open source
drivers where the synchronization is already handled correctly without
this extra work and the extra work would just be a complete waste of
time. [*]
I
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:14:34 -0800, James Jones jajo...@nvidia.com wrote:
I do think fence objects will be generally
useful on all platforms.
Right, I think there's pretty general agreement that integrating OpenGL
fencing into the X protocol is a good idea. And, this is the bulk of the
changes
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 15:42:30 -0800, James Jones jajo...@nvidia.com wrote:
-Our drivers are going to be non-compliant in regard to the implicitly
synchronized behavior for the foreseeable future. It is truly a mountain of
work to implement it with reasonable performance in our current
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:30:59 -0800, James Jones jajo...@nvidia.com wrote:
Right, and as discussed on IRC, I'll do the minimal work on the xserver patch
series to extract DamageSubtractAndTrigger from the general X fence sync
changes over the weekend and have it tested and ready for review on
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 09:40:06 -0800, James Jones jajo...@nvidia.com wrote:
As I mentioned early on, I really want to get the fence sync work in server
1.10. The server code was reviewed by Adam Jackson (thanks for sifting
through all that) and various nvidians, but I still haven't received any
James Jones wrote:
-Alan and Adam, because you provided some early feedback on the proto specs
but never responded to my updates based on said feedback.
Sorry, I've been rather busy lately. As I recall, my main request was that you
update the protocol spec when adding the new requests - since
12 matches
Mail list logo
