On 02/22/2014 11:57 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:53:03 -0800
Bill Spitzak wrote:
How about something like this, which is my understanding:
"The frame callback is sent when it is known that the last commit will
be visible on the screen. If a second commit is sent before the
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:55:06 -0600
Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2014 1:45 AM, "Pekka Paalanen" wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks for all the comments, it's encouraging to see a concensus
> > emerging. One reply below...
> >
> > On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 07:50:01 -0600
> > Jason Ekstrand wrote:
On Feb 23, 2014 1:50 AM, "Pekka Paalanen" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:38:15 -0600
> Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
> > Pekka,
> > Sorry this e-mail took so long to send. Not much time lately. The
first
> > time or two I read this suggested re-wording I didn't like it, but now
it's
> > starting t
On Feb 23, 2014 1:45 AM, "Pekka Paalanen" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks for all the comments, it's encouraging to see a concensus
> emerging. One reply below...
>
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 07:50:01 -0600
> Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 2014 2:44 AM, "Axel Davy" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> >
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:53:03 -0800
Bill Spitzak wrote:
> How about something like this, which is my understanding:
>
> "The frame callback is sent when it is known that the last commit will
> be visible on the screen. If a second commit is sent before the frame
> callback it is quite possible
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:38:15 -0600
Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Pekka,
> Sorry this e-mail took so long to send. Not much time lately. The first
> time or two I read this suggested re-wording I didn't like it, but now it's
> starting to grow on me. I still kind of like the idea of "the buffer you
>
Hi,
thanks for all the comments, it's encouraging to see a concensus
emerging. One reply below...
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 07:50:01 -0600
Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2014 2:44 AM, "Axel Davy" wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I like very much the rewording proposed by Pekka.
> >
> > But I dislike y
On Feb 22, 2014 2:44 AM, "Axel Davy" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I like very much the rewording proposed by Pekka.
>
> But I dislike your proposition to send frame callbacks right away if the
attached buffer has been attached for a long time.
>
> Your argument seems to be that the client may manage to get
Hi,
I like very much the rewording proposed by Pekka.
But I dislike your proposition to send frame callbacks right away if the
attached buffer has been attached for a long time.
Your argument seems to be that the client may manage to get to the next
pageflip if the frame callback is called r
Pekka,
Sorry this e-mail took so long to send. Not much time lately. The first
time or two I read this suggested re-wording I didn't like it, but now it's
starting to grow on me. I still kind of like the idea of "the buffer you
sent is now in use, go ahead and send the next one" but I don't know
How about something like this, which is my understanding:
"The frame callback is sent when it is known that the last commit will
be visible on the screen. If a second commit is sent before the frame
callback it is quite possible the first commit will never be seen, as
the new one will replace
From: Pekka Paalanen
"the callback event will arrive after the next output refresh" is wrong,
if you interpret "output refresh" as framebuffer flip or the moment when
the new pixels turn into light the first time. Weston has probably never
worked this way.
Weston triggers the frame callbacks whe
12 matches
Mail list logo
