On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:03:04 +0200 Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:40:37 +0200 > Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> > > > > The X11 window manager (XWM) of a Wayland compositor can use the > > _XWAYLAND_ALLOW_COMMITS property to control when Xwayland sends > > wl_surface.commit requests. If the property is not set, the behaviour > > remains what it was. > > > > XWM uses the property to inhibit commits until the window is ready to be > > shown. This gives XWM time to set up the window decorations and internal > > state before Xwayland does the first commit. XWM can use this to ensure > > the first commit carries fully drawn decorations and the window > > management state is correct when the window becomes visible. > > > > Setting the property to zero inhibits further commits, and setting it to > > non-zero allows commits. Deleting the property allows commits. > > > > When the property is changed from zero to non-zero, there will be a > > commit on next block_handler() call provided that some damage has been > > recorded. > > > > Without this patch (i.e. with the old behaviour) Xwayland can and will > > commit the surface very soon as the application window has been realized > > and drawn into. This races with XWM and may cause visible glitches. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> > > --- > > hw/xwayland/xwayland.c | 110 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > hw/xwayland/xwayland.h | 3 ++ > > 2 files changed, 113 insertions(+) > > Hi all, > > the reason this patch is RFC are the XXX comments in the code, and the > question: is it ok for Xwayland to hook up to properties and implement > functionality that way? > > This patch was based on some whacky code from 2010, so the conventions > might be off. > > I've highlighted the XXX comments below. > > Patches 1 and 2 OTOH would be ready for merging on my behalf. > > Olivier asked about _NET_WM_SYNC_REQUEST - do you want me to fully > implement the basic sync protocol too before accepting this series? Hi, forgot to mention that the WIP Weston counterpart for this series is: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/16109/ where the last patch uses the new property. Thanks, pq
pgpuqTZ08ah0Y.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
