Hi,
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 at 12:43, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 11:41:29 +0100 Daniel Stone <dani...@collabora.com> wrote:
> > @@ -2610,9 +2612,18 @@ drm_pending_state_apply_atomic(struct
> > drm_pending_state *pending_state,
> > case DRM_STATE_APPLY_ASYNC:
> > flags |= DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_EVENT | DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_NONBLOCK;
> > break;
> > + case DRM_STATE_TEST_ONLY:
> > + flags |= DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_TEST_ONLY;
> > + break;
> > }
> >
> > ret = drmModeAtomicCommit(b->drm.fd, req, flags, b);
> > +
> > + if (mode == DRM_STATE_TEST_ONLY) {
> > + drmModeAtomicFree(req);
> > + return ret;
>
> In this case this function did not take ownership of pending_state,
> right? That's different from all earlier behaviours. I'm thinking of
> comments, if anything more would need updating. The below is probably
> good already.
Right you are, but a comment definitely seems worthwhile. (And yes,
deleting the old comment was certainly a mistake ...)
Cheers,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
