Hi, thanks for reviewing. Am 03.10.2017 09:02:03 schrieb(en) Pekka Paalanen:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 17:39:56 +0200 Mahdi Khanalizadeh <[email protected]> wrote:> Add an explanation for wl_surface.attach why a wl_surface.damage request > is necessary. Explicitly declare it implementation defined behaviour if the > wl_surface.damage request is omitted to give the compositor some leeway> on how it handles attaches. > > Signed-off-by: Mahdi Khanalizadeh <[email protected]> > --- > protocol/wayland.xml | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/protocol/wayland.xml b/protocol/wayland.xml > index aabc7ae..6f6cc11 100644 > --- a/protocol/wayland.xml > +++ b/protocol/wayland.xml > @@ -1365,6 +1365,11 @@> wl_buffer before receiving the wl_buffer.release event, the surface> contents become undefined immediately. > > + Attaching a buffer should always be accompanied by a > + wl_surface.damage request to signal the compositor that the> + contents of the buffer have changed. Otherwise it is implementation > + defined whether the wl_surface.attach request has any visible effect.Hi, thank you for the clarification, I assume this is as a response to our IRC discussion.
Indeed.
How about phrasing it: "Attaching a buffer should always be accompaniedTaking your suggestions into account, what’s your opinion on adding the following sentence after the first paragraphs of damage and damage_buffer instead ofby at least one wl_surface.damage request to signal the compositor which parts of the surface contents are changed."? - There can be multiple damage requests to build up a complex region. - It's not about buffer contents, it is about surface contents. - We don't want to imply that you must always give full surface-sized damage when the buffer is swapped. However, most of the new paragraph are redundant with the first paragraph for the damage request. Could you instead add one more sentence to the first paragraph explaining that the compositor has no obligation to use the new contents outside of the given damage?There is also the request damage_buffer which is otherwise the same butuses a different coordinate system.
my original change? “For this reason every wl_surface.attach request should always be accompanied by at least one wl_surface.damage or wl_surface.damage_buffer request to signal the compositor which parts of the surface contents have changed, because the compositor is not obliged to update any surface content that falls outside of the damaged area.”
> + > If wl_surface.attach is sent with a NULL wl_buffer, the > following wl_surface.commit will remove the surface content. > </description> Thanks, pq
pgpe2Vr1fOi_R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
