Agree but I don't know enough to make the right change. Its non-trivial for fission guys.
On Dec 5, 2007 1:14 AM, Denis Oliver Kropp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mike Emmel wrote: > > Sorry not quite the right patch. > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/fusion/lock.c b/lib/fusion/lock.c > > index 9b756ba..bc1b22d 100644 > > --- a/lib/fusion/lock.c > > +++ b/lib/fusion/lock.c > > @@ -592,9 +592,9 @@ fusion_skirmish_lock_count( const FusionSkirmish > > *skirmish, int *lock_c > > > > D_UNIMPLEMENTED(); > > > > - *lock_count = 0; > > + *lock_count = 1; > > > > - return DFB_UNIMPLEMENTED; > > + return DFB_OK; > > } > > It would still be a bogus implementation. If only FUSION_SKIRMISH_ASSERT() > uses the function, it's ok, it would just never fail. But if some code really > needs to know if it has a lock, we should find a better solution. > > -- > Best regards, > Denis Oliver Kropp > > .------------------------------------------. > | DirectFB - Hardware accelerated graphics | > | http://www.directfb.org/ | > "------------------------------------------" > _______________________________________________ directfb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-dev
