[Wayland-bugs] [Bug 75303] Protocol: wl_buffer.release is racy

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75303

Jonas Ådahl <jadahl at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jadahl at gmail.com

--- Comment #6 from Jonas Ådahl <jadahl at gmail.com> ---
Why can't we just let wl_buffer.release simply be a notification about the
buffer being reusable, meaning,

After a client commits a surface with a wl_buffer at 1 attached, it should be
consider busy until it receives the release event. If the client attaches the
same wl_buffer at 1 to multiple surfaces, its still up to the server to let the
client know when the buffer is no longer used, and may be reused by the client.

I.e.

1. surface1.attach(buffer1)
2. surface1.commit  (client should consider buffer1 busy until further notice)
3. surface2.attach(buffer1)
4. surface2.commit  (this deosn't change the buffer1 busy state)

..would result in a single buffer1.release() event being emitted whenever the
server doesn't use buffer1 for neither surfaces. This is how I'd interpret the
current wording in the specification as well; being more or less orthogonal to
commits and frame callbacks.

Or is there something I'm missing? Why would it be important to get release
events per commits?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-bugs/attachments/20150917/0fb4425a/attachment.html>