Should we just unconditionally enable xshmfence? Are there any OSes we care about that can't implement a fence primitive?
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Mark Kettenis <[email protected]> wrote: > Currently glamor hits an assertion on systems that don't have > xshmfence. This happens when the glamor code calls > miSyncGetScreenFuncs() because the miSyncScreenPrivateKey has not been > set up. For systems with xshmfence, this happens when > miSyncShmScreenInit() gets called, but that code is wrapped within > #ifdef HAVE_XSHMFENCE. The diff below simply calls miSyncSetup() > instead if HAVE_XSHMFENCE is not defined. This makes things work, but > I'm not sure if this is the right approach. > > Thoughts? > > > Index: glamor/glamor_sync.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/xenocara/xserver/glamor/glamor_sync.c,v > retrieving revision 1.1 > diff -u -p -r1.1 glamor_sync.c > --- glamor/glamor_sync.c 16 Sep 2015 19:10:21 -0000 1.1 > +++ glamor/glamor_sync.c 15 Nov 2015 13:02:31 -0000 > @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ glamor_sync_init(ScreenPtr screen) > #ifdef HAVE_XSHMFENCE > if (!miSyncShmScreenInit(screen)) > return FALSE; > +#else > + if (!miSyncSetup(screen)) > + return FALSE; > #endif > > screen_funcs = miSyncGetScreenFuncs(screen); > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected]: X.Org development > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel -- Jasper _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
