2009/11/12 Michel Dänzer <[email protected]>: > 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? >
It's an extra layer yes, if that is considered unacceptable, then this leaves only the 2nd option. > > -- > 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
