[Spice-devel] [PATCH 3/7] worker: move surfaces to DisplayChannel

[Frediano Ziglio]

> 
> On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 11:16 -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Frediano Ziglio <fziglio at redhat.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau at gmail.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Ok. this one was painful.Note that in some cases, DCC_TO_DC should be
> > > > made safer (there used to be a if !dcc guard in some places, although
> > > > that looks wrong anyway)...
> > > > ---
> > > >  server/display-channel.c |   79 ++++
> > > >  server/display-channel.h |   37 +-
> > > >  server/red_worker.c      | 1116
> > > >  ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
> > > >  server/red_worker.h      |    2 +
> > > >  4 files changed, 592 insertions(+), 642 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/server/display-channel.c b/server/display-channel.c
> > 
> > ... omissis ...
> > 
> > > >  RedChannel* red_worker_get_cursor_channel(RedWorker *worker);
> > > >  RedChannel* red_worker_get_display_channel(RedWorker *worker);
> > > > +void red_worker_print_stats(RedWorker *worker);
> > > > 
> > > >  RedChannel *red_worker_new_channel(RedWorker *worker, int size,
> > > >                                     const char *name,
> > > > --
> > > > 2.4.3
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Spice-devel mailing list
> > > > Spice-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
> > > 
> > > I have ACKED this one in the other thread. Not sure if you are waiting
> > > for one more ACK (I would wait for one more ACK).
> > > Here is the link:
> > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/2015-November/023472.html
> > > 
> > 
> > Sorry, I forgot to update the patch. Can I proposed this?
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> >  server/red_worker.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/server/red_worker.c b/server/red_worker.c
> > index 68ac527..f2b1446 100644
> > --- a/server/red_worker.c
> > +++ b/server/red_worker.c
> > @@ -877,7 +877,7 @@ static inline void current_remove(DisplayChannel
> > *display,
> > TreeItem *item)
> >  {
> >      TreeItem *now = item;
> >  
> > -    /* depth-first tree traversal, todo: do a to tree_foreach()? */
> > +    /* depth-first tree traversal, TODO: do a to tree_foreach()? */
> >      for (;;) {
> >          Container *container = now->container;
> >          RingItem *ring_item;
> > @@ -3316,10 +3316,15 @@ static ImageItem
> > *red_add_surface_area_image(DisplayChannelClient *dcc, int surf
> >  
> >  static void red_push_surface_image(DisplayChannelClient *dcc, int
> >  surface_id)
> >  {
> > -    DisplayChannel *display = DCC_TO_DC(dcc);
> > +    DisplayChannel *display;
> >      SpiceRect area;
> >      RedSurface *surface;
> >  
> > +    if (!dcc) {
> > +        return;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    display = DCC_TO_DC(dcc);
> 
> Is there a valid reason for dcc to be NULL? If not, I'd suggest
> g_return_if_fail() so that it prints a warning.
> 
> 
> >      surface = &display->surfaces[surface_id];
> >      if (!surface->context.canvas) {
> >          return;
> > @@ -7316,10 +7321,17 @@ static SurfaceCreateItem *get_surface_create_item(
> >  
> >  static inline void red_create_surface_item(DisplayChannelClient *dcc, int
> > surface_id)
> >  {
> > -    DisplayChannel *display = dcc ? DCC_TO_DC(dcc) : NULL;
> > +    DisplayChannel *display;
> >      RedSurface *surface;
> >      SurfaceCreateItem *create;
> > -    uint32_t flags = is_primary_surface(DCC_TO_DC(dcc), surface_id) ?
> > SPICE_SURFACE_FLAGS_PRIMARY : 0;
> > +    uint32_t flags;
> > +
> > +    if (!dcc) {
> > +        return;
> > +    }
> 
> 
> same comment here.
> 
> 
> > +
> > +    display = DCC_TO_DC(dcc);
> > +    flags = is_primary_surface(DCC_TO_DC(dcc), surface_id) ?
> > SPICE_SURFACE_FLAGS_PRIMARY : 0;
> >  
> >      /* don't send redundant create surface commands to client */
> >      if (!dcc || display->common.during_target_migrate ||
> 

Actually this second check is redundant.

The two checks for dcc NULL was already there before the patch this
patch modify.
The previous patch changed them in a wrong way. This was pointed out by
Fabiano which proposed a patch and said "ok with these changes" (not literal
citation). I proposed a different code that restore the checks.

Frediano