Hello Hyungwon, Hyungwon Hwang wrote: > Hello Tobias, > > On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 10:47:02 +0100 > Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hello Hyungwon, >> >> >> Hyungwon Hwang wrote: >>> Hello Tobias, >>> >>> I was in vacation last week, so I could run your code today. I found >>> that what g2d_move() does is actually copying not moving, because >>> the operation does not clear the previous area. >> I choose g2d_move() because we also have memcpy() and memmove() in >> libc. Like in libc 'moving' memory doesn't actually move it, like you >> would move a real object, since it's undefined what 'empty' memory >> should be. >> >> The same applies here. It's not defined what 'empty' areas of the >> buffer should be. >> >> >>> Would it be possible to >>> generalize g2d_copy() works better, so it could works well in case >>> of the src buffer and dst buffer being same. >> I think this would break g2d_copy() backward compatibility. >> >> I also want the user to explicitly request this. The user should make >> sure what requirements he has for the buffers in question. Are the >> buffers disjoint or not? >> >> >>> If it is possible, I think it >>> would be better way to do that. If it is not, at least chaning the >>> function name is needed. I tested it on my Odroid U3 board. >> I don't have a strong opinion on the naming. Any recommendations? >> >> I still think the naming is fine though, since it mirrors libc's >> naming. And the user is supposed to read the documentation anyway. > >> >> >> >> With best wishes, >> Tobias > > In that manner following glibc, I agree that the naming is reasonable. well, that was just my way of thinking. But I guess most people have experience using the libc, so the naming should look at least 'familiar'. > I commented like that previously, because at the first time when I run > the test, I think that the result seems like a bug. The test program > said that it was a move test, but the operation seemed copying. Ok, so just that I understand this correctly. Your issue is with the commit the description of the test or with the commit description of the patch that introduces g2d_move()? Because I don't see what you point out in the test commit description: " tests/exynos: add test for g2d_move To check if g2d_move() works properly we create a small checkerboard pattern in the center of the screen and then shift this pattern around with g2d_move(). The pattern should be properly preserved by the operation. " I intentionally avoid to write "...move this pattern around...", so instead I choose "shift". I'm not a native speaker, so I'm clueless how to formulate this in a more clear way. > It > would be just OK if it is well documented or printed when runs the test > that the test does not do anything about the previous area > intentionally. I could add solid fills of the 'empty' areas after each move() operation. Would that be more in line what you think the test should do? With best wishes, Tobias > > > BRs, > Hyungwon Hwang > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
