https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75303
Jonas Ådahl <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #6 from Jonas Ådahl <[email protected]> --- Why can't we just let wl_buffer.release simply be a notification about the buffer being reusable, meaning, After a client commits a surface with a wl_buffer@1 attached, it should be consider busy until it receives the release event. If the client attaches the same wl_buffer@1 to multiple surfaces, its still up to the server to let the client know when the buffer is no longer used, and may be reused by the client. I.e. 1. surface1.attach(buffer1) 2. surface1.commit (client should consider buffer1 busy until further notice) 3. surface2.attach(buffer1) 4. surface2.commit (this deosn't change the buffer1 busy state) ..would result in a single buffer1.release() event being emitted whenever the server doesn't use buffer1 for neither surfaces. This is how I'd interpret the current wording in the specification as well; being more or less orthogonal to commits and frame callbacks. Or is there something I'm missing? Why would it be important to get release events per commits? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ wayland-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-bugs
