Hi, El mié, 03-08-2016 a las 16:36 +0300, Dmitry Fleytman escribió: > > From: Javier Celaya <javier.celaya@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:17 PM > > Subject: Re: [PATCH win-vdagent] Provide support for > > Windows CCD API > > To: spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > Hi, > > > > El mié, 03-08-2016 a las 04:57 -0400, Frediano Ziglio escribió: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 11:35:56AM +0300, Sameeh Jubran wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > We've already looked into those patches (Javier's patches) > > and > > > > > tested them. > > > > > > > > Ah ok, I must have missed your answer to Javier's series. > > > > > > > > > We found that on the contrary to our patches, > > > > > multi-monitor support and arbitrary resolution do not work > > with > > > > > the patches > > > > > posted by Javier. Even though arbitrary resolution > > > > > resolution is implemented in Javier's patches, it is not > > fully > > > > > arbitrary. > > > > And full arbitrary resolution would be too complicated to add on > > top of > > Javier's series, hence the decision to go with an entirely > > different > > series? Sorry for the basic questions, I'm really not familiar with > > Windows API :) > > > > Christophe > > > > > > > > Not at all. I did not implement multi-monitor support because that > > required to break the interface with the last kernel driver version > > at > > that moment (it only supported one operation, setting an arbitrary > > resolution). So it is only a matter of writing the new escapes. > > > > On the other hand, I limited arbitrary resolutions to even sizes > > because, again, that was what the kernel driver was doing at that > > moment. That restriction is gone now, so my code can be adjusted to > > really arbitrary resolutions. > Hi Javier, > > First of all, I’m sorry for the mess created with this submission, > that was not intentional > and we’re doing everything possible for fix it. > > Patches we are submitting now already support these 2 features, > and we are going to submit corresponding driver patches as soon as > this series get accepted. > > We also did a few improvements on top of this patches (see RFC pathes > I sent a few days ago), > that will be submitted as well. > > If I understand correctly, at that point you’ll be able to rebase > your work > on top of these patches and get the same functionality you have now + > additional features. > > Do you have any problem with this approach? Nope, we are fine with it, thanks :) Thanks, Dmitry Frediano_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel -- Respectfully,Sameeh Jubran LinkedinJunior Software Engineer @ Daynix. _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel