On Mit, 2011-01-05 at 09:15 -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > 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...
Maybe not (even ignoring the EXA regression): https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32547 -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
