On 5 June 2018 at 18:28, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> Hi Emil,
>
> Many thanks for your detailed review!
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Emil Velikov
> wrote:
>> Hi Olivier,
>>
>> There's a handful of mostly trivial suggestions below. The idea itself seems
>> reasonable IMHO. One gripe is that
Hi Emil,
Many thanks for your detailed review!
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Hi Olivier,
>
> There's a handful of mostly trivial suggestions below. The idea itself seems
> reasonable IMHO. One gripe is that we're 'leaking' twice as much as before.
>
> Namely: even if
Hi Olivier,
There's a handful of mostly trivial suggestions below. The idea itself seems
reasonable IMHO. One gripe is that we're 'leaking' twice as much as before.
Namely: even if the current backend cleans-up after itself (it some cases it
does not), the other backend 'leaks'. Not sure if/how
On Fri, 2018-06-01 at 16:31 +0200, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> To be able to check for availability of the Wayland interfaces required
> to run a given EGL backend (either GBM or EGL streams for now), we need
> to have each backend structures and vfuncs in place before we enter the
> Wayland registry
To be able to check for availability of the Wayland interfaces required
to run a given EGL backend (either GBM or EGL streams for now), we need
to have each backend structures and vfuncs in place before we enter the
Wayland registry dance.
That basically means that we should init all backends at
