On 15/08/16 11:18 PM, walter harms wrote:
> Am 15.08.2016 11:43, schrieb Michel Dänzer:
>>
>> diff --git a/glamor/glamor_copy.c b/glamor/glamor_copy.c
>> index 3501a0d..82e040a 100644
>> --- a/glamor/glamor_copy.c
>> +++ b/glamor/glamor_copy.c
>> @@ -222,9 +222,40 @@ glamor_copy_cpu_fbo(DrawablePtr src,
>>
>> fbGetDrawable(src, src_bits, src_stride, src_bpp, src_xoff, src_yoff);
>>
>> - glamor_upload_boxes(dst_pixmap, box, nbox, src_xoff + dx, src_yoff + dy,
>> - dst_xoff, dst_yoff,
>> - (uint8_t *) src_bits, src_stride * sizeof (FbBits));
>
>
> my i suggest to invert the question to improve readability ?
>
> if (!bitplane) {
> glamor_upload_boxes(dst_pixmap, box, nbox, src_xoff + dx,
> src_yoff + dy,
> dst_xoff, dst_yoff,
> (uint8_t *) src_bits, src_stride * sizeof
> (FbBits));
> glamor_finish_access(src);
> return TRUE;
> }
>
> btw: i hope return TRUE is intended here
Yes, it is.
> and then the rest ...
Thanks for your suggestion. I don't agree that it would improve
readability, but it did make me realize other potential to slightly
simplify the patch, see v3.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
