glamor and the sync extension

[Jasper St. Pierre]

Should we just unconditionally enable xshmfence? Are there any OSes we
care about that can't implement a fence primitive?

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Currently glamor hits an assertion on systems that don't have
> xshmfence.  This happens when the glamor code calls
> miSyncGetScreenFuncs() because the miSyncScreenPrivateKey has not been
> set up.  For systems with xshmfence, this happens when
> miSyncShmScreenInit() gets called, but that code is wrapped within
> #ifdef HAVE_XSHMFENCE.  The diff below simply calls miSyncSetup()
> instead if HAVE_XSHMFENCE is not defined.  This makes things work, but
> I'm not sure if this is the right approach.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Index: glamor/glamor_sync.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/xenocara/xserver/glamor/glamor_sync.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.1
> diff -u -p -r1.1 glamor_sync.c
> --- glamor/glamor_sync.c        16 Sep 2015 19:10:21 -0000      1.1
> +++ glamor/glamor_sync.c        15 Nov 2015 13:02:31 -0000
> @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ glamor_sync_init(ScreenPtr screen)
>  #ifdef HAVE_XSHMFENCE
>         if (!miSyncShmScreenInit(screen))
>                 return FALSE;
> +#else
> +       if (!miSyncSetup(screen))
> +               return FALSE;
>  #endif
>
>         screen_funcs = miSyncGetScreenFuncs(screen);
>
> _______________________________________________
> xorg-devel at lists.x.org: X.Org development
> Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
> Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel



-- 
  Jasper