On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:10:25 +0100
Neil Roberts wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't considering the fullscreen case
> where the compositor is directly scanning out from the client's buffers.
> I think for the non-fullscreen case the compositor would only hold on to
> a single buffer, ri
Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't considering the fullscreen case
where the compositor is directly scanning out from the client's buffers.
I think for the non-fullscreen case the compositor would only hold on to
a single buffer, right? In that case the sync request is enough.
I think in an idea
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:58:56 +0100
Neil Roberts wrote:
> I like Kristian's proposal to throttle the swap buffers to sync
> callbacks. It has the added benefit that we can stop the client from
> unnecessarily using 3 buffers by waiting for the sync event in
> get_back_bo. The previous patch would
I like Kristian's proposal to throttle the swap buffers to sync
callbacks. It has the added benefit that we can stop the client from
unnecessarily using 3 buffers by waiting for the sync event in
get_back_bo. The previous patch would cause the client to use three
buffers because it would only block
