Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bind dmabuf v5 #441

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 1, 2024
Merged

Bind dmabuf v5 #441

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 1, 2024

Conversation

ids1024
Copy link
Member

@ids1024 ids1024 commented Feb 16, 2024

This makes creating a dmabuf with different modifiers for different planes a protocol error.

This could be considered a breaking API change, but I don't think we need a semver bump for it because:

  • Callers should never have actually used different modifiers for different planes, since this was never valid.
  • Most users of this protocol tend to use create_immed, in which case they would get a protocol error. So it's "breaking" only if an application calls create with non-sense params and then expects to get failed.

When we do have an API break, the API should probably be changed to only allow a single modifier.

This change isn't important, but will be needed for future updates to dmabuf.

This makes creating a dmabuf with different modifiers for different
planes a protocol error.

This *could* be considered a breaking API change, but I don't think we
need a semver bump for it because:
* Callers should never have actually used different modifiers for
  different planes, since this was never valid.
* Most users of this protocol tend to use `create_immed`, in which case
  they would get a protocol error.
So it's "breaking" if an application calls `create` with non-sense
params and then expects to get `failed`.

When we do have an API break, the API should probably be changed to only
allow a single modifier.

This change isn't important, but will be needed for future updates to
dmabuf.
@wash2 wash2 merged commit 72f98e7 into Smithay:master Mar 1, 2024
4 of 5 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants