The spec says nothing about the order between damage_buffer and attach
requests.
Details
Details
- Reviewers
davidedmundson - Group Reviewers
KWin - Commits
- R127:ff9cadf00f21: [server] Don't make assumptions about the order of damage_buffer and attach…
Firefox doesn't become frozen. Although there are still issues with resizing.
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- R127 KWayland
- Branch
- dont-assume-that-damage-buffer-must-be-called-before-attach
- Lint
Lint OK - Unit
No Unit Test Coverage - Build Status
Buildable 23959 Build 23977: arc lint + arc unit
Comment Actions
In general, the idea of raising a protocol error when the client tries to damage a surface with no buffer seems sensible. But the spec doesn't say damage_buffer requests must be followed by attach requests and we can't really predict the future.
Comment Actions
Heh, I'm having some de ja vu.
I did this already, for the same situation for the same bug:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=397834#c19
https://phabricator.kde.org/D28147
for damage()
Then damageBuffer got introduced with the existing bug!