[PATCH 2/2] damageext: Xineramify (v4)

[Keith Packard]

Adam Jackson <ajax at redhat.com> writes:

> Well, no, but it could never matter.  The per-screen reports are already
> clipped to their respective borderClips (which, as noted, are clipped to
> their containing root), and then I'm unioning them all together on
> screen 0's DamagePtr.  The union of per-root-window borderClips can't
> exceed the Xinerama view of the border clip by definition.

Oh, so screen 0 contains all of the damage. Do internal Damage users
handle this OK? Or are you reporting out per-physical-screen damage to
them and only tracking this union damage for applications?

> Doing it in Subtract seems both much simpler and much saner than trying
> to wrap configuraton changes, yeah.

Cool. Retains the current (slightly mystic) semantics, which always
seems safest.

-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20131009/c612eccd/attachment.pgp>