Re: [PATCH] Extend wl_surface protocol [reminder]

2013-11-03 Thread Axel Davy
Thanks for this. I've just realized that using 32 bits ints won't be sufficient. Is there a way in the protocol to have requests with 64 bits int args, and callback with 64 bits int args too? Axel Davy Jiergir Ogoerg wrote : Just a reminder on how clocks differ (on LInux) from one another,

[PATCH] Extend wl_surface protocol [reminder]

2013-11-03 Thread Jiergir Ogoerg
Just a reminder on how clocks differ (on LInux) from one another, taken from here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-man/msg00973.html Needless to say, gettimeofday() should be avoided. CLOCK_REALTIME - can jump - can slew - if ntp is running this clock is always kept close to GMT. even if hardw

Re: [PATCH] Extend wl_surface protocol

2013-11-03 Thread Axel Davy
James Courtier-Dutton wrote : Just one question. Which clock is being used. Ideally a monotony one, or even better, a configurable one. We would normally not want these timestamps affected by the user changing the system time. James X calculates ust time with the function GetTickCount.

Re: [PATCH] Extend wl_surface protocol

2013-11-03 Thread James Courtier-Dutton
On Nov 2, 2013 11:40 PM, "Axel Davy" wrote: > > Here is another proposition to extend the protocol > to allow video players to control better the time at > which frames hit the screen. > > Contrary to the original proposition: > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2013-October/0114

[PATCH] Extend wl_surface protocol

2013-11-02 Thread Axel Davy
Here is another proposition to extend the protocol to allow video players to control better the time at which frames hit the screen. Contrary to the original proposition: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2013-October/011496.html I do not separate the new request in another int