On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 12:36:18 +0200
Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:19:39 +0000
> "Ucan, Emre (ADITG/ESB)" <eu...@de.adit-jv.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Pekka,
> > 
> > Yes, I know that it is an ABI breakage. But there is already another
> > ABI breakage in compositor.h:
> > fbf165f5e89576730eed4a7e3979100311c4f0f8 Users of ivi-shell has to
> > recompile for weston 4.0 anyway.  
> 
> Ok. To be honest, I've lost track of what's ABI for you and what's not.
> I'd appreciate a note in the commit message, so I see you've thought of
> it. Anyway:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paala...@collabora.co.uk>

Sorry, this patch alone triggers a distcheck failure for me.

[14:26:32.310] weston_test_runner.run("surface_properties_changed_notification")
[14:26:32.310] Assert failure in ../../tests/ivi_layout-test-plugin.c:905, 
runner_func_surface_properties_changed_notification: 'ctx->user_flags == 0'
[14:26:32.310] libwayland: error in client communication (pid 876)
[14:26:32.408] 
weston_test_runner.run("surface_bad_properties_changed_notification")
[14:26:32.408] ivi_layout_surface_add_listener: invalid argument
[14:26:32.408] ivi_layout_surface_add_listener: invalid argument
[14:26:32.409] weston_test_runner.run("surface_on_many_layer")
[14:26:32.409] Assert failure in ../../tests/ivi_layout-test-plugin.c:586, 
runner_func_surface_on_many_layer: 'IVI_TEST_LAYER_COUNT == length'
[14:26:32.409] Assert failure in ../../tests/ivi_layout-test-plugin.c:588, 
runner_func_surface_on_many_layer: 'array[i] == ivilayers[i]'
[14:26:32.409] Assert failure in ../../tests/ivi_layout-test-plugin.c:588, 
runner_func_surface_on_many_layer: 'array[i] == ivilayers[i]'
[14:26:32.409] Assert failure in ../../tests/ivi_layout-test-plugin.c:588, 
runner_func_surface_on_many_layer: 'array[i] == ivilayers[i]'
[14:26:32.409] Assert failure in ../../tests/ivi_layout-test-plugin.c:602, 
runner_func_surface_on_many_layer: 'length == 0 && array == NULL'
[14:26:32.409] libwayland: error in client communication (pid 1032)


Oddly enough, 'make -j7 check' does not fail, but 'make -j7 distcheck'
fails. Also 'make distcheck' does not fail, so it seems like a parallel
testing problem. What baffles me is that I have not seen this failure
before this patch, and both the failure and the successes seems to be
very repeatable.

Can you reproduce this failure?


Thanks,
pq

> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pekka Paalanen [mailto:ppaala...@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Februar 2018 11:02
> > > To: Ucan, Emre (ADITG/ESB)
> > > Cc: wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH weston 1/4] ivi-shell: change layer visibility
> > > to bool
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:04:56 +0100
> > > Emre Ucan <eu...@de.adit-jv.com> wrote:
> > >     
> > > > ivi_layout_layer_set_visibility has bool
> > > > as argument.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan <eu...@de.adit-jv.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  ivi-shell/ivi-layout-export.h | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/ivi-shell/ivi-layout-export.h
> > > > b/ivi-shell/ivi-layout-export.h index 277ac59..f656602 100644
> > > > --- a/ivi-shell/ivi-layout-export.h
> > > > +++ b/ivi-shell/ivi-layout-export.h
> > > > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ struct ivi_layout_layer_properties
> > > >         int32_t dest_width;
> > > >         int32_t dest_height;
> > > >         enum wl_output_transform orientation;
> > > > -       uint32_t visibility;
> > > > +       bool visibility;
> > > >         int32_t transition_type;
> > > >         uint32_t transition_duration;
> > > >         double start_alpha;    
> > > 
> > > Hi Emre,
> > > 
> > > you acknowledge that this might be an ABI break, and do not care,
> > > right? This struct is in an installed header.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > pq    
> 

Attachment: pgpDCk7FFRhCb.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel

Reply via email to