content/common: Remove use of MessageLoopProxy and deprecated MessageLoop APIs

content/common: Remove use of MessageLoopProxy and deprecated MessageLoop APIs

This patch was mostly autogenerated with https://codereview.chromium.org/1010073002/.

BUG=465354
Committed: https://crrev.com/adc9b4ed3d797c2990d682a3784d2e892198ce00
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#329696}

Committed: https://crrev.com/d445291dc69fa20ff01879180fb7928d146ca729
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#329846}

[Sami, 2015-05-12 11:37:24]

skyostil@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ sievers@chromium.org

[Sami, 2015-05-12 12:47:56]

Daniel, let me know if you're sick of looking at these patches already :)

[no sievers, 2015-05-12 18:11:30]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/cli...
File content/common/gpu/client/gpu_channel_host.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/cli...
content/common/gpu/client/gpu_channel_host.cc:386:
DCHECK(listeners_.find(route_id) == listeners_.end());
nit: maybe keep the DCHECK() from above here i.e. DCHECK(task_runner.get())?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/med...
File content/common/gpu/media/v4l2_slice_video_decode_accelerator.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/med...
content/common/gpu/media/v4l2_slice_video_decode_accelerator.cc:501:
decoder_thread_proxy_ = decoder_thread_.task_runner();
nit: consider renaming |decoder_thread_proxy_|

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/med...
File content/common/gpu/media/vaapi_video_decode_accelerator.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/med...
content/common/gpu/media/vaapi_video_decode_accelerator.h:285:
scoped_refptr<base::SingleThreadTaskRunner> decoder_thread_proxy_;
nit: consider renaming |decoder_thread_proxy_|

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/med...
File content/common/gpu/media/vaapi_video_encode_accelerator.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/med...
content/common/gpu/media/vaapi_video_encode_accelerator.h:238:
scoped_refptr<base::SingleThreadTaskRunner> encoder_thread_proxy_;
nit: consider renaming |encoder_thread_proxy_|

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/renderer/rende...
File content/renderer/render_thread_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/renderer/rende...
content/renderer/render_thread_impl.cc:1474: return io_message_loop_proxy_;
nit: consider renaming |io_message_loop_proxy_|

[Sami, 2015-05-13 18:17:52]

Thanks! All comments addressed.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/cli...
File content/common/gpu/client/gpu_channel_host.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/cli...
content/common/gpu/client/gpu_channel_host.cc:386:
DCHECK(listeners_.find(route_id) == listeners_.end());
On 2015/05/12 18:11:30, sievers wrote:
> nit: maybe keep the DCHECK() from above here i.e. DCHECK(task_runner.get())?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/med...
File content/common/gpu/media/v4l2_slice_video_decode_accelerator.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/med...
content/common/gpu/media/v4l2_slice_video_decode_accelerator.cc:501:
decoder_thread_proxy_ = decoder_thread_.task_runner();
On 2015/05/12 18:11:30, sievers wrote:
> nit: consider renaming |decoder_thread_proxy_|

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/med...
File content/common/gpu/media/vaapi_video_decode_accelerator.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/med...
content/common/gpu/media/vaapi_video_decode_accelerator.h:285:
scoped_refptr<base::SingleThreadTaskRunner> decoder_thread_proxy_;
On 2015/05/12 18:11:30, sievers wrote:
> nit: consider renaming |decoder_thread_proxy_|

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/med...
File content/common/gpu/media/vaapi_video_encode_accelerator.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/common/gpu/med...
content/common/gpu/media/vaapi_video_encode_accelerator.h:238:
scoped_refptr<base::SingleThreadTaskRunner> encoder_thread_proxy_;
On 2015/05/12 18:11:30, sievers wrote:
> nit: consider renaming |encoder_thread_proxy_|

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/renderer/rende...
File content/renderer/render_thread_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/120001/content/renderer/rende...
content/renderer/render_thread_impl.cc:1474: return io_message_loop_proxy_;
On 2015/05/12 18:11:30, sievers wrote:
> nit: consider renaming |io_message_loop_proxy_|

Done.

[Sami, 2015-05-13 18:17:59]

The CQ bit was checked by skyostil@chromium.org

[Sami, 2015-05-13 18:18:00]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from sievers@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/#ps160001
(title: "Review comments.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-13 18:18:51]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1134113002/160001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-13 19:19:19]

Committed patchset #9 (id:160001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-13 19:20:01]

Patchset 9 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/adc9b4ed3d797c2990d682a3784d2e892198ce00
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#329696}

[zmo, 2015-05-13 20:58:06]

This might break win gpu debug bot:

http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.gpu.fyi/builders/Win8%20Release%20%28NVI...

[2940:848:0513/134829:FATAL:handle_closer_agent.cc(86)] Check failed: dup_dummy
== closed_handle.
Backtrace:
base::Histogram::GetBucketSize [0x014E0BE1+491969]
base::Histogram::GetBucketSize [0x0152D11F+804607]
IsSandboxedProcess [0x00484403+171363]
IsSandboxedProcess [0x004847A8+172296]
IsSandboxedProcess [0x0046FFF4+88404]
IsSandboxedProcess [0x00470674+90068]
content::PepperVideoEncoderHost::RequireBitstreamBuffers [0x11D6F6A5+28870365]
content::PepperVideoEncoderHost::RequireBitstreamBuffers [0x11D6EE1F+28868183]
content::PepperVideoEncoderHost::RequireBitstreamBuffers [0x10367AB9+1575665]
content::PepperVideoEncoderHost::RequireBitstreamBuffers [0x103678D2+1575178]
content::PepperVideoEncoderHost::RequireBitstreamBuffers [0x10353940+1493368]
policy::internal::RestrictionNode::operator= [0x024E20B8+3079635]
(No symbol) [0x004176DE]
(No symbol) [0x00411D4D]
SetCrashKeyValueImpl [0x004C5DDC+36620]
SetCrashKeyValueImpl [0x004C5F1D+36941]
BaseThreadInitThunk [0x77AE919F+14]
RtlInitializeExceptionChain [0x77D4B54F+143]
RtlInitializeExceptionChain [0x77D4B51A+90]

[Evan Stade, 2015-05-13 22:01:27]

estade@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ estade@chromium.org

[Evan Stade, 2015-05-13 22:01:28]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/160001/content/common/gpu/med...
File content/common/gpu/media/gpu_video_decode_accelerator.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/diff/160001/content/common/gpu/med...
content/common/gpu/media/gpu_video_decode_accelerator.cc:311:
io_message_loop_));
this also seems to break the build for USE_V4L2_CODEC

[Evan Stade, 2015-05-13 22:03:22]

A revert of this CL (patchset #9 id:160001) has been created in
https://codereview.chromium.org/1135943005/ by estade@chromium.org.

The reason for reverting is: Broke the build for CHROMEOS && USE_V4L2_CODEC.

[Sami, 2015-05-14 12:04:17]

Relanding with a build fix.

zmo wrote:
> This might break win gpu debug bot:
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.gpu.fyi/builders/Win8%20Release%20%28NVI...

Are you sure? That failure looks unrelated to me. Also, your link goes to a
windows release bot build which didn't have this patch in it. I checked all the
other debug gpu bots but didn't find any redness when this patch landed the
first time.

On 2015/05/13 22:03:22, Evan Stade wrote:
> A revert of this CL (patchset #9 id:160001) has been created in
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1135943005/ by mailto:estade@chromium.org.
> 
> The reason for reverting is: Broke the build for CHROMEOS && USE_V4L2_CODEC.

Sorry for the breakage. Next time please link to the failing builds directly to
make them easier to diagnose (I wasn't able to find any failures on the
waterfall).

[Sami, 2015-05-14 12:04:23]

The CQ bit was checked by skyostil@chromium.org

[Sami, 2015-05-14 12:04:23]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from sievers@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1134113002/#ps180001
(title: "Fix CrOS build.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-14 12:04:44]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1134113002/180001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-14 14:42:04]

Committed patchset #10 (id:180001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-14 14:42:48]

Patchset 10 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/d445291dc69fa20ff01879180fb7928d146ca729
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#329846}

[Evan Stade, 2015-05-14 21:53:04]

On 2015/05/14 12:04:17, Sami wrote:
> Relanding with a build fix.
> 
> zmo wrote:
> > This might break win gpu debug bot:
> >
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.gpu.fyi/builders/Win8%20Release%20%28NVI...
> 
> Are you sure? That failure looks unrelated to me. Also, your link goes to a
> windows release bot build which didn't have this patch in it. I checked all
the
> other debug gpu bots but didn't find any redness when this patch landed the
> first time.
> 
> On 2015/05/13 22:03:22, Evan Stade wrote:
> > A revert of this CL (patchset #9 id:160001) has been created in
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/1135943005/ by mailto:estade@chromium.org.
> > 
> > The reason for reverting is: Broke the build for CHROMEOS && USE_V4L2_CODEC.
> 
> Sorry for the breakage. Next time please link to the failing builds directly
to
> make them easier to diagnose (I wasn't able to find any failures on the
> waterfall).

There was no failing bot that I know of. A human reported the build failure, and
brief inspection of the code showed that it was clearly broken for certain build
flags.

[Sami, 2015-05-15 10:45:09]

On 2015/05/14 21:53:04, Evan Stade wrote:
> There was no failing bot that I know of. A human reported the build failure,
and
> brief inspection of the code showed that it was clearly broken for certain
build
> flags.

Ah, right. If we care about that build config, we should probably add a bot on
the waterfall for it.