On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Jon TURNEY <jon.tur...@dronecode.org.uk> wrote: > On 24/03/2014 19:56, Kristian Høgsberg wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Jon TURNEY wrote: >>> Handle -displayfd and an explicit display number sensibly, e.g. use the >>> explicitly specified display number, and write it to the displayfd >> >> I don't think the two options were meant to be used together, but I >> can see how that would be useful. Non-signal based ready notification >> while letting the parent process pick the display is useful for >> Xwayland as well. > > Well, in the alternative, the X server could exit with an error if -displayfd > and an explicit display number are used, but this seems more useful. > >> The parent process creates the fd in our process environment and could >> pick 0 as the display fd. Let's initialize to -1 which is never a >> valid fd. > > A very good point. Amended patch to account for this attached. >
Reviewed-by: Kristian Høgsberg <k...@bitplanet.net> > _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel