On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:44:11 +0200, Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> wrote:
> This patch doesn't actually interfere with the damagedDescendants patch, > so we can either take both or just the damagedDescendants patch. Marking > the window as damaged only after the copy has been performed seems a bit > cleaner to me. But I don't have any strong feelings either way, so you > get to choose ;) Marking the damage later turns out to be slightly more expensive as the damage has to be 'remembered' across the rendering operation and merged in later on. And, it changes a lot of code paths. I think we've fixed the bugs from that, having done the same thing for the Damage extension, but... I think the smaller and simpler change is actually to do the damagedDescendents patch and leave out the report after patch. I'll merge that set and push it out. -- [email protected]
pgpGY2L46wlWi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
