On Jul 2, 2010, at 11:43 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:07:48 +0200
Mario Kleiner mario.klei...@tuebingen.mpg.de wrote:
...
Then i think the idea of multiple wait queues doesn't allow to get
rid of IgnoreClient(), but we will still need those wait queues in
addition to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:07:48 +0200
Mario Kleiner mario.klei...@tuebingen.mpg.de wrote:
On Jun 29, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Keith Packard wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:18:31 +0200, Mario Kleiner
mario.klei...@tuebingen.mpg.de wrote:
What i assume but didn't check is that xlib doesn't have a
In GL code, we have two subsystems using IgnoreClient these days: GLX
and DRI2.
GLX uses it to suspend clients while the server is VT switched away
(not sure why, maybe some drivers can't handle it?).
DRI2 uses it to implement swap throttling and various GLX extensions
and DRI2 protocol
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:18:31 +0200, Mario Kleiner
mario.klei...@tuebingen.mpg.de wrote:
What i assume but didn't check is that xlib doesn't have a problem
with getting replies out of sequence
The X protocol is purely sequential -- you can't execute requests out of
order (and queuing replies
On Jun 29, 2010, at 12:27 AM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
In GL code, we have two subsystems using IgnoreClient these days: GLX
and DRI2.
GLX uses it to suspend clients while the server is VT switched away
(not sure why, maybe some drivers can't handle it?).
DRI2 uses it to implement swap throttling
On Jun 29, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Keith Packard wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:18:31 +0200, Mario Kleiner
mario.klei...@tuebingen.mpg.de wrote:
What i assume but didn't check is that xlib doesn't have a problem
with getting replies out of sequence
The X protocol is purely sequential -- you
