On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:37:34 -0700
Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 12:02:14PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >
> > I stick to my simplest suggestion:
> > - inherit inhibition for sub-surfaces (by effectiveness, not by
> > pretending the child has its own copy of the inhibitor
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 12:02:14PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:51:30 +0800
> Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 07:10:25PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:26:24AM +0800, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:51:30 +0800
Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 07:10:25PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:26:24AM +0800, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:24:20PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > > > This interface allows disab
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:35:09 -0700
Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 11:41:12AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:33:42 -0700
> > Bryce Harrington wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 04:11:39PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2016
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 07:10:25PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:26:24AM +0800, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:24:20PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > > This interface allows disabling of screensaver/screenblanking on a
> > > per-surface basis. A
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:26:24AM +0800, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:24:20PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > This interface allows disabling of screensaver/screenblanking on a
> > per-surface basis. As long as the surface remains visible and
> > non-occluded it blocks the s
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 11:41:12AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:33:42 -0700
> Bryce Harrington wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 04:11:39PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:14:33 -0700
> > > Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > >
> > > > This interfa
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:08:00AM -0500, Yong Bakos wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2016, at 7:18 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >> I don't believe this is a good choice. Imagine the case of a surface-less
> >> 'inhibitor daemon.'
> >
> > An ordinary client must not be able to do that.
> >
> >> There may be no
On Jun 6, 2016, at 7:18 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:39:24 -0500
> Yong Bakos wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 4:04 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:26:24 +0800
>>> Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:24:20PM -0700, B
On Jun 6, 2016, at 7:18 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:39:24 -0500
> Yong Bakos wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 4:04 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:26:24 +0800
>>> Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:24:20PM -0700, B
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:39:24 -0500
Yong Bakos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Jun 3, 2016, at 4:04 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:26:24 +0800
> > Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:24:20PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> >>> This interface allows disablin
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:39:24AM -0500, Yong Bakos wrote:
> >>> + This destroys the inhibit manager.
> >
> > Good addition. Should probably say how destroying the manager affects
> > the inhibitors created from it (no effect at all)?
>
> Agreed w/ pq. But, is the inhibit manager a /singleton/ g
Hi,
On Jun 3, 2016, at 4:04 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:26:24 +0800
> Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:24:20PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
>>> This interface allows disabling of screensaver/screenblanking on a
>>> per-surface basis. As long as the
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:26:24 +0800
Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:24:20PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > This interface allows disabling of screensaver/screenblanking on a
> > per-surface basis. As long as the surface remains visible and
> > non-occluded it blocks the screens
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:33:42 -0700
Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 04:11:39PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:14:33 -0700
> > Bryce Harrington wrote:
> >
> > > This interface allows disabling of screensaver/screenblanking on a
> > > per-surface basis.
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:24:20PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> This interface allows disabling of screensaver/screenblanking on a
> per-surface basis. As long as the surface remains visible and
> non-occluded it blocks the screensaver, etc. from activating on the
> output(s) that the surface
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:10:22AM +0300, Giulio Camuffo wrote:
> 2016-03-24 20:14 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington :
> > This interface allows disabling of screensaver/screenblanking on a
> > per-surface basis. As long as the surface remains visible and
> > non-occluded it blocks the screensaver, etc.
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 04:11:39PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:14:33 -0700
> Bryce Harrington wrote:
>
> > This interface allows disabling of screensaver/screenblanking on a
> > per-surface basis. As long as the surface remains visible and
> > non-occluded it blocks the
This interface allows disabling of screensaver/screenblanking on a
per-surface basis. As long as the surface remains visible and
non-occluded it blocks the screensaver, etc. from activating on the
output(s) that the surface is visible on.
To uninhibit, simply destroy the inhibitor object.
Signed
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 04:11:39PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:14:33 -0700
>
> Should I go through the v3 Weston patches too, or do you want to revise
> them according to protocol changes first?
Yes, the weston patches are the main thing that haven't gotten reviewed
so f
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:14:33 -0700
Bryce Harrington wrote:
> This interface allows disabling of screensaver/screenblanking on a
> per-surface basis. As long as the surface remains visible and
> non-occluded it blocks the screensaver, etc. from activating on the
> output(s) that the surface is vi
2016-03-24 20:14 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington :
> This interface allows disabling of screensaver/screenblanking on a
> per-surface basis. As long as the surface remains visible and
> non-occluded it blocks the screensaver, etc. from activating on the
> output(s) that the surface is visible on.
>
> T
This interface allows disabling of screensaver/screenblanking on a
per-surface basis. As long as the surface remains visible and
non-occluded it blocks the screensaver, etc. from activating on the
output(s) that the surface is visible on.
To uninhibit, simply destroy the inhibitor object.
Signed
23 matches
Mail list logo
