On 13 June 2017 at 07:03, Tapani Pälli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 06/12/2017 04:30 PM, Eric Engestrom wrote: >> >> On Monday, 2017-06-12 09:39:15 +0300, Tapani Pälli wrote: >>> >>> Hi Eric; >>> >>> EGL_KHR_swap_buffers_with_damage is implemented by Android's EGL wrapper >>> library so these tests are passing already, no implementation required in >>> Mesa side. >> >> >> Right, I keep forgetting that android intercepts some stuff and lets the >> rest through to mesa. >> So 2/2 is unnecessary, but should we still land 1/2? >> >> At worst, it's an unnecessary call to a `return false` function, and at >> best it sets the correct damage before swapping. >> >> There's an alternative "worst", which would be a platform on which >> swap_buffers_with_damage != set_damage_region + swap_buffers, >> but on such a platform the fallback shouldn't be used anyway, so using >> it would be the bug. >> >> What do you think? >> > > Sure, I'm OK going ahead with patch 1 (r-b)! > I was going to mention "hey we'll assert in eglSwapBuffersWithDamage{EXT,KHR} if 2/2 is missing" only to notice that the assert is missing :-\
We might want to even drop the asserts and return early, since asserts are omitted on release builds :-\ Mildly related: there's some subtle difference in the "surface" meaning in EGL_KHR_swap_buffers_with_damage vs EGL_KHR_partial_update but we could address that as a follow-up. Tl;Dr: AFAICT we want both patches, plus some small follow-up fixes Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <[email protected]> -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
