Hello Pekka-san,
Thank you so much for your review and proposal.
I will send another patch of the warning removal and memory leak which
you kindly found during this topic.
Thanks,
Wataru Natsume
On 2016-02-19 20:20, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:48:40 +0900
Wataru Natsume <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Wataru Natsume <[email protected]>
Previous code cleaned up surfaces in layer once and then added
surfaces to a layer in random. In this flow, two commitchanges are
required.
Signed-off-by: Nobuhiko Tanibata <[email protected]>
[[email protected]: Removes unnecessary check]
Signed-off-by: Wataru Natsume <[email protected]>
---
Changes from v1 - Removes unnecessary check if the surface is on a
layer.
ivi-shell/hmi-controller.c | 9 ---------
1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ivi-shell/hmi-controller.c b/ivi-shell/hmi-controller.c
index 8da3d3c..ace6555 100644
--- a/ivi-shell/hmi-controller.c
+++ b/ivi-shell/hmi-controller.c
@@ -424,18 +424,9 @@ mode_random_replace(struct hmi_controller
*hmi_ctrl,
wl_list_for_each(application_layer, layer_list, link) {
layers[layer_idx] = application_layer;
-
ivi_layout_interface->layer_set_render_order(layers[layer_idx]->ivilayer,
- NULL, 0);
layer_idx++;
}
- /*
- * This commit change is needed because ivisurface can not belongs
to several layers
- * at the same time. So ivisurfaces shall be removed from layers
once and then set them
- * to layers randomly.
- */
- ivi_layout_interface->commit_changes();
-
for (i = 0; i < surface_length; i++) {
ivisurf = pp_surface[i];
Hi Natsume-san,
this looks fine at first, but when testing it, mode_random_replace()
will trigger one "ivi_layout_layer_add_surface: addsurf is already
available" warning per existing surface.
ivi_layout_layer_add_surface() is checking if the surface is already
(current, not the pending state) on the given layer. This is likely
because in a previously intended future a surface might be in multiple
layers, and adding it multiple times to the same layer is considered a
mistake (given how surface positioning works in this ivi-layout API
design, that is understandable).
Maybe we should also just remove that check from
ivi_layout_layer_add_surface()? I don't see any value from it in the
current code base. If Emre adds views as a tying object in the
ivi-layout API, this code will get rewritten anyway.
Apart from the harmless log spew, this patch is:
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]>
If you want to make a patch to remove the warning, I can push the both
patches at the same time.
Thanks,
pq
_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
