On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Keith Packard <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:29:55 -0400, Kristian Høgsberg <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Here's the other approach for fixing damage vs flush client. In writing the >> commit message, it certainly does feel like damage should just be fixed to >> not reply on that behaviour. And writing the patch, I realize that the >> optimization is not just about saving a syscall, but also about avoiding >> having to realloc the output buffer to hold a request that's bigger than >> BUFSIZE (hello, XkbSendMap()). The current code only does that when it >> fails to write the output buffer + extra request and the remaining bytes >> don't fit in a standard sized buffer. > > This doesn't really fix the issue as we're potentially sending a stream > of events from the damage extension. We'd have to buffer all of them > until FlushAllOutput, I think.
So from IRC it sounds like the post-op damage reporting code isn't too horrible after all. If you're OK with changing damageext to use the post-op reporting, please add a Reviewed-by and I'll send a pull request. Kristian _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: [email protected]
