On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 20:30 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: > 2009/11/12 Michel Dänzer <[email protected]>: > > On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 13:32 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: > >> - Fix the system that is required for it to actually work. > >> - The comment near the new macros explains the problem that existed before. > > > > I'm not sure it really explains why we need two levels of wrapping. > > The 2nd level is needed is because you want to do something more than > usual wrapping. > The DestroyPixmap example is a nice one. If i use single wrapping i > loose fbDestroyPixmap which is unacceptable, because the chain has to > be like this: > exaDestroyPixmapWithFinish->damageDestroyPixmap->exaDestroyPixmap->(w)fbDestroyPixmap, > with single wrapping this would be > exaDestroyPixmapWithFinish->damageDestroyPixmap->exaDestroyPixmap->exaDestroyPixmapWithFinish, > which is a loop.
exaDestroyPixmapWithFinish->damageDestroyPixmap looks like a layering violation. Could that be at least part of the problem in the first place? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
