On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:07:02PM +0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 04:17:10AM +0200, ext Jamey Sharp wrote:
> ...
>
> > - sprintf(pvfb->mmap_file, "%s/Xvfb_screen%d", pfbdir, pvfb->scrnum);
> > + sprintf(pvfb->mmap_file, "%s/Xvfb_screen%d", pfbdir, (int) (pvfb -
> > vfbScreens));
>
> ...
>
> > - ErrorF("screen %d shmid %d\n", pvfb->scrnum, pvfb->shmid);
> > + ErrorF("screen %d shmid %d\n", (int) (pvfb - vfbScreens), pvfb->shmid);
>
> That's a really nice catch :) But hey, do we need to be verbose here? I'd
> prefer to avoid these pointer calculation, which is really bad for readability
> of code.
Both of those statements are necessary, I believe. The first ensures
that each mmap'd framebuffer has a different name and the user can work
out which one came from which screen. The second looks like the only way
to find out which shared-memory segment the server allocated for each
screen. (Both modes are disabled by default, enabled by command line
options.)
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 07:30:15AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> That could be avoided by just passing scrnum down as an argument through the
> vfbAllocate* functions, since it's an argument (index) to the vfbScreenInit()
> that calls vfbAllocateFramebufferMemory() in the first place.
Good point. That's a rather larger change than I wanted to make, though,
particularly since I'm hoping to replace Xfake and Xvfb with small shell
scripts using the video-dummy driver, eventually. :-)
Jamey
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
