On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 21:27:03 +0000 Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> wrote:
> Hi Varad, > > On 11 November 2016 at 11:40, Varad Gautam <varadgau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > handle create_immed() dmabuf import requests and support > > zwp_linux_dmabuf_v1_interface version 2. > > Same caveat about holding off on merging applies, but these two patches are: > Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <dani...@collabora.com> Hi, yeah, the Weston patch v1 is probably good, considering my review on the protocol patch v2 essentially asking to go back to the v1 with just some wording added. However, it would be good to check and ensure what happens in Weston when a client uses a wl_buffer that has failed the dmabuf import. I suspect you would need to add some checks somewhere depending on what Weston will do. I think we pretty much agreed that Weston will just send a fatal error to the client if it commits a failed wl_buffer. How to recognize a failed wl_buffer then... maybe NULL user data on the wl_resource? Then there will be places that need to check for NULL: the commit machinery and destructor come to mind. Whatever Weston does, it cannot avoid creating the wl_resource. It must be created, if the protocol XML says a new object is created. And for 'create_immed' request, a new object is created. This is probably overlooked in patch v1. Thanks, pq _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
