cc: Make damage on delegated frame damage the host layer.

cc: Make damage on delegated frame damage the host layer.

When the delegated renderer layer receives a frame, it should
be considered damaged by the compositor in the same place that
the frame had damage.

If multiple frames come between commits, then aggregate the
damage together. If the scale at which the frame will be draw
changes, then damage the whole layer.

Tests:
LayerTreeHostDelegatedTestLayerUsesFrameDamage.runSingleThread
LayerTreeHostDelegatedTestLayerUsesFrameDamage.runMultiThread

R=piman
BUG=123444
Depends on: https://codereview.chromium.org/12328118/

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=185123

[danakj, 2013-02-27 02:10:25]

btw, I'll work on a CL to do the resource remapping based on this tomorrow.
Rebasing the big CL on this will probably be super annoying, so please avoid
doing that.

[piman, 2013-02-27 02:27:43]

Mostly LGTM with 2 questions

https://codereview.chromium.org/12340095/diff/4002/cc/delegated_renderer_laye...
File cc/delegated_renderer_layer_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/12340095/diff/4002/cc/delegated_renderer_laye...
cc/delegated_renderer_layer_impl.cc:56: if (new_frame_is_empty) {
Should we make the layer with an empty frame !drawsContent() so that this part
is taken care of at a higher level?

https://codereview.chromium.org/12340095/diff/4002/cc/delegated_renderer_laye...
cc/delegated_renderer_layer_impl.cc:60:
DCHECK(!new_root_pass->output_rect.IsEmpty());
What if it is empty? Given that this comes from an untrusted renderer, do we
need to handle this at a higher level? Or can we make it do something not crazy?

https://codereview.chromium.org/12340095/diff/4002/cc/layer_tree_host_unittes...
File cc/layer_tree_host_unittest_delegated.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/12340095/diff/4002/cc/layer_tree_host_unittes...
cc/layer_tree_host_unittest_delegated.cc:35:
TestDelegatedRendererLayer(LayerTreeHostDelegatedTest* test)
nit: explicit

[danakj, 2013-02-27 20:05:02]

https://codereview.chromium.org/12340095/diff/4002/cc/delegated_renderer_laye...
File cc/delegated_renderer_layer_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/12340095/diff/4002/cc/delegated_renderer_laye...
cc/delegated_renderer_layer_impl.cc:56: if (new_frame_is_empty) {
On 2013/02/27 02:27:43, piman wrote:
> Should we make the layer with an empty frame !drawsContent() so that this part
> is taken care of at a higher level?

Ya that sounds nice. I'll do it in a follow up, the test should not need
changing I think.

https://codereview.chromium.org/12340095/diff/4002/cc/delegated_renderer_laye...
cc/delegated_renderer_layer_impl.cc:60:
DCHECK(!new_root_pass->output_rect.IsEmpty());
On 2013/02/27 02:27:43, piman wrote:
> What if it is empty? Given that this comes from an untrusted renderer, do we
> need to handle this at a higher level? Or can we make it do something not
crazy?

I think we should drop it at the ipc level and/or on the main thread side ie
when we see it for the first time. I'll add that.

https://codereview.chromium.org/12340095/diff/4002/cc/layer_tree_host_unittes...
File cc/layer_tree_host_unittest_delegated.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/12340095/diff/4002/cc/layer_tree_host_unittes...
cc/layer_tree_host_unittest_delegated.cc:35:
TestDelegatedRendererLayer(LayerTreeHostDelegatedTest* test)
On 2013/02/27 02:27:43, piman wrote:
> nit: explicit

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-02-27 20:06:07]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/danakj@chromium.org/12340095/12001

[danakj, 2013-02-27 21:03:38]

+slavi

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-02-27 22:25:32]

Retried try job too often on linux_chromeos for step(s) browser_tests
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=linux_chro...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-02-27 22:28:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/danakj@chromium.org/12340095/12001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-02-28 02:37:57]

Change committed as 185123