Am 09.01.2014 09:29, schrieb Wenchao Xia: > δΊ 2014/1/8 17:08, Peter Lieven ει: >> Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven <p...@kamp.de> >> --- >> ui/vnc.c | 9 +++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/ui/vnc.c b/ui/vnc.c >> index da552fe..a742d32 100644 >> --- a/ui/vnc.c >> +++ b/ui/vnc.c >> @@ -3170,7 +3170,9 @@ void vnc_display_open(DisplayState *ds, const char >> *display, Error **errp) >> acl = 1; >> #endif >> } else if (strncmp(options, "lossy", 5) == 0) { >> +#ifdef CONFIG_VNC_JPEG >> vs->lossy = true; >> +#endif >> } else if (strncmp(options, "non-adaptive", 12) == 0) { >> vs->non_adaptive = true; >> } else if (strncmp(options, "share=", 6) == 0) { >> @@ -3187,6 +3189,13 @@ void vnc_display_open(DisplayState *ds, const char >> *display, Error **errp) >> } >> } >> >> + /* adaptive updates are only used with tight encoding and >> + * if lossy updates are enabled so we can disable all the >> + * calculations otherwise */ >> + if (!vs->lossy) { >> + vs->non_adaptive = true; >> + } >> + > The code seems: if vs->loosy == false, then vs->non_adaptive = true, > translate as: if loosy update is not used, then don't do adaptive > update., which doesn't conform with the comments. I am not sure if this > is on expectation. It don't see the logic break. The option means non_adaptive, not adaptive.
I write "adaptive updates are only used ... with lossy updates...". Which is the same as "without lossy updates we don't need adaptive updates". Peter > > >> #ifdef CONFIG_VNC_TLS >> if (acl && x509 && vs->tls.x509verify) { >> if (!(vs->tls.acl = qemu_acl_init("vnc.x509dname"))) { >>