On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:10:38PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> > +void qxl_render_update_area_done(PCIQXLDevice *qxl, QXLCookie *cookie)
> > +{
>
> This is called from spice server thread context, correct?
>
> > - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dirty); i++) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(data->dirty); i++) {
> > if (qemu_spice_rect_is_empty(dirty+i)) {
> > break;
> > }
> > @@ -151,6 +171,7 @@ void qxl_render_update(PCIQXLDevice *qxl)
>
> dpy_update() call here. Calling that one isn't safe without grabbing
> the qemu lock.
About dpy_update, discovered it the hard way. You mean I need the lock
for dpy_update or also before?
>
> > dirty[i].right - dirty[i].left,
> > dirty[i].bottom - dirty[i].top);
> > }
>
> > @@ -145,15 +145,19 @@ void qxl_spice_update_area(PCIQXLDevice *qxl,
> > uint32_t surface_id,
> > uint32_t clear_dirty_region,
> > qxl_async_io async, QXLCookie *cookie)
> > {
> > + struct QXLRect *area_copy;
> > if (async == QXL_SYNC) {
> > qxl->ssd.worker->update_area(qxl->ssd.worker, surface_id, area,
> > dirty_rects, num_dirty_rects, clear_dirty_region);
> > } else {
> > #if SPICE_INTERFACE_QXL_MINOR >= 1
> > if (cookie == NULL) {
> > + area_copy = g_malloc0(sizeof(*area_copy));
> > + memcpy(area_copy, area, sizeof(*area));
> > + area = area_copy;
> > cookie = qxl_cookie_new(QXL_COOKIE_TYPE_IO,
> > QXL_IO_UPDATE_AREA_ASYNC,
> > - 0);
> > + (uint64_t)area_copy);
>
> I still think this is the wrong place.
Yes, I agree, I thought I removed this already, I'll fix.
>
> Also: How about making removing QXLCookie->data and adding a union
> instead? It's not like we have to transparently pass through a pointer
> for someone else, it's our own state data, so this extra indirection
> doesn't make sense at all.
ok, will do.
>
> cheers,
> Gerd
>
