https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=761312
--- Comment #28 from Ray Strode [halfline] <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to Ray Strode [halfline] from comment #27)
> Of course, this code all makes the assumption that it's okay to destroy the
> buffer after the frame callback, which as pointed out in the side discussion
> in this bug, isn't necessarily true.
To clarify this, a little: in practice the assumption is okay, since we're only
talking about shm buffers and there's no legitimate reason for a compositor to
need to access to a shm buffer after processing the frame, but conceptually, I
guess, it's uncouth to destroy a buffer before it's explicitly released.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
wayland-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-bugs
