Does anyone see any reason why I shouldn't change ShadowFBInit
to pass FALSE? This seems to be produce the original behavior.
Passing TRUE certainly doesn't.
Mark.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
>
> I don't really know what the point of fbIsVirtual was.
> Apps that use ShadowFBInit need to repaint when entering
> the VT. We didn't have the EnableDisableFBAccess stuff
> when I wrote shadowfb and the refresh at EnterVT was to
> catch the copy from the old root window backing pixmap.
> With EnableDisableFBAccess handling exposures, it shouldn't
> be needed anymore but we definitely don't want to
> block EnableDisableFBAccess like the code is doing.
>
> It seems like having ShadowFBInit call ShadowFBInit2 with
> FALSE is the correct behavior. Experimentation shows
> this to remove the corruption.
>
> Mark.
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 06:57:27 -0500, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
> > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Guido Guenther wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 05:28:27PM -0500, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
> > > > [..snip..]
> > > > > - Removal of old fullscreen update code (when VT switching)
> > > > > Does that correspond with the breakage?
> > > > Yeah! Especially the above point looks suspicious. I'll see if I can
> > > > check out a version prior to this and see if it works later this week.
> > > > Thanks a lot,
> > > > -- Guido
> > >
> > > Those modifications did:
> > >
> > > static Bool
> > > @@ -206,17 +271,9 @@ ShadowEnterVT(int index, int flags)
> > > {
> > > ScrnInfoPtr pScrn = xf86Screens[index];
> > > ShadowScreenPtr pPriv = GET_SCREEN_PRIVATE(pScrn->pScreen);
> > > - BoxRec box;
> > >
> > > if((*pPriv->EnterVT)(index, flags)) {
> > > pPriv->vtSema = TRUE;
> > > -
> > > - box.x1 = box.y1 = 0;
> > > - box.x2 = pScrn->pScreen->width;
> > > - box.y2 = pScrn->pScreen->height;
> > > -
> > > - (*pPriv->refresh)(pScrn, 1, &box);
> > > -
> > > return TRUE;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Which appears to prevent the shadowfb code from repainting the
> > > screen when entering the VT. I don't know why that modification was
> > > made. It will clearly leave a messed up screen when switching back.
> > > I've just reproed that on x86.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know why that was removed? It seems erroneous.
> >
> > Thinking some more,
> >
> > The above code should probably be put back and wrapped with
> >
> > if (fbIsVirtual) {
> > ....
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > Is Nolan Leake around here to comment ?
> >
> > Alan.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devel mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
