<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - memory leak"
href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=761312#c28">Comment # 28</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - memory leak"
href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=761312">bug 761312</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a href="page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=rstrode%40redhat.com" title="Ray Strode [halfline] <rstrode@redhat.com>"> <span class="fn">Ray Strode [halfline]</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Ray Strode [halfline] from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=761312#c27">comment #27</a>)
<span class="quote">> Of course, this code all makes the assumption that it's okay to destroy the
> buffer after the frame callback, which as pointed out in the side discussion
> in this bug, isn't necessarily true.</span >
To clarify this, a little: in practice the assumption is okay, since we're only
talking about shm buffers and there's no legitimate reason for a compositor to
need to access to a shm buffer after processing the frame, but conceptually, I
guess, it's uncouth to destroy a buffer before it's explicitly released.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>