On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 04:14:09PM +0100, Rui Matos wrote: > The last cursor frame we commited before the pointer left one of our > surfaces might not have been shown. In that case we'll have a cursor > surface frame callback pending which we need to clear so that we can > continue submitting new cursor frames. > > Signed-off-by: Rui Matos <tiagoma...@gmail.com> > --- > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Xwayland commits a wl_buffer to a cursor wl_surface with a frame > > callback, and the frame callback may never be emitted by the > > compositor, right? > > > > Is Xwayland waiting for any previous frame callback to be signalled > > before it commits a buffer or re-sets the cursor role on the > > wl_surface? Even if the commit and re-set is caused by wl_pointer.enter? > > > > Would it be a better fix to destroy any pending frame callback and > > commit and re-set the role unconditionally on wl_pointer.enter? > > Yes, this seems like the proper fix indeed. Thanks, > > Rui > > hw/xwayland/xwayland-input.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/hw/xwayland/xwayland-input.c b/hw/xwayland/xwayland-input.c > index 61ca70b..f9e3255 100644 > --- a/hw/xwayland/xwayland-input.c > +++ b/hw/xwayland/xwayland-input.c > @@ -267,6 +267,16 @@ pointer_handle_enter(void *data, struct wl_pointer > *pointer, > for (i = 0; i < dev->button->numButtons; i++) > if (BitIsOn(dev->button->down, i)) > QueuePointerEvents(dev, ButtonRelease, i, 0, &mask); > + > + /* The last cursor frame we commited before the pointer left one > + * of our surfaces might not have been shown. In that case we'll > + * have a cursor surface frame callback pending which we need to > + * clear so that we can continue submitting new cursor frames. */ > + if (xwl_seat->cursor_frame_cb) { > + wl_callback_destroy(xwl_seat->cursor_frame_cb); > + xwl_seat->cursor_frame_cb = NULL; > + xwl_seat_set_cursor(xwl_seat); > + } > } > > static void
Reviewed-by: Bryce Harrington <br...@osg.samsung.com> How noticeable/severe is this problem? Can this be left to 1.11? _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel