<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Wayland lacks cross-process synchronisation" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97353#c13">Comment # 13</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Wayland lacks cross-process synchronisation" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97353">bug 97353</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:daniel@fooishbar.org" title="Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>"> Daniel Stone</a> <pre>(In reply to Kristian Høgsberg from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=97353#c12">comment #12</a>) > (In reply to Tomek Bury from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=97353#c11">comment #11</a>) > > That's not the case, at least in the latest compositor. Now compositor keeps > > EGL images for the lifetime of a client and assumes that writes from client > > and reads from the compositor will be implicitly interlocked, the > > eglImageCreate() and eglImageDestroy() happens only once per buffer and > > can't be a driver hook point to create fences. > > Which compositor is this? From a quick look at weston, it looks like it > unrefs the EGLImages when a new wl_buffer is attached, but maybe there's > some subtlety in the ref-counting there. I'd equally consider any compositor which doesn't do this to be broken. Weston to the best of my knowledge (and a quick check) does destroy and recreate. You're very right that this should be documented better. I'm not sure if the Khronos specs are the best place, or a document in the Wayland repository itself. Can we take this bug as one request for explicit fencing support (being actively pursued), and another one to document the EGL platform requirements for both driver implementations and compositors?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>