On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 16:10:39 +0100
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> We were calling weston_surface::committed on surfaces with
> no buffer attached. Stop doing that, since surface::committed
> will map the surfaces and put them in a visible layer. That may
> not be a problem for a single surface a
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:27:18 -0600
Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 03/02/17 09:10 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > We were calling weston_surface::committed on surfaces with
> > no buffer attached. Stop doing that, since surface::committed
> > will map the surfaces and put them in a visible layer.
On 03/02/17 16:27, Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 03/02/17 09:10 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> We were calling weston_surface::committed on surfaces with
>> no buffer attached. Stop doing that, since surface::committed
>> will map the surfaces and put them in a visible layer. That may
>> not be a
On 03/02/17 09:10 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
We were calling weston_surface::committed on surfaces with
no buffer attached. Stop doing that, since surface::committed
will map the surfaces and put them in a visible layer. That may
not be a problem for a single surface as it wouldn't be visi
We were calling weston_surface::committed on surfaces with
no buffer attached. Stop doing that, since surface::committed
will map the surfaces and put them in a visible layer. That may
not be a problem for a single surface as it wouldn't be visible
anyway because it's got no contents, but it is a p
