While i agree with your intention, you should clarify the comment. Currently it reads: Returns TRUE if pixmap can be accessed offscreen.
Something like this might be better: Returns TRUE if pixmap access succeeded and it's a gpu pixmap. Repeated prepare access will return FALSE. 2009/12/8 Michel Dänzer <[email protected]>: > From: Michel Dänzer <[email protected]> > > This is what's documented in the function header and expected by both callers > which care about the return code. In particular, otherwise > exaPrepareAccessReg_mixed may incorrectly free the system memory copy, e.g. > when the same pixmap is both the destination and source of an operation. > > (The other place which cares is exaAssertNotDirty(), which is a classic > specific debugging function not active normally) > > Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <[email protected]> > --- > exa/exa.c | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/exa/exa.c b/exa/exa.c > index 23a1388..c5c67fc 100644 > --- a/exa/exa.c > +++ b/exa/exa.c > @@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ ExaDoPrepareAccess(PixmapPtr pPixmap, int index) > for (i = 0; i < EXA_NUM_PREPARE_INDICES; i++) { > if (pExaScr->access[i].pixmap == pPixmap) { > pExaScr->access[i].count++; > - return TRUE; > + return FALSE; > } > } > > @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ ExaDoPrepareAccess(PixmapPtr pPixmap, int index) > exaWaitSync (pScreen); > > if (pExaScr->info->PrepareAccess == NULL) > - return TRUE; > + return FALSE; > > if (index >= EXA_PREPARE_AUX_DEST && > !(pExaScr->info->flags & EXA_SUPPORTS_PREPARE_AUX)) { > -- > 1.6.4.3 > > _______________________________________________ > xorg-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel > _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
