Ensure |m_image| is (re-)created in ImageResource::didAddClient()

Ensure |m_image| is (re-)created in ImageResource::didAddClient()

After ImageResource is pruned, |m_image| can be turned into null, but is not
re-created when ResourceClient is added to ImageResource later.
We re-create |m_image| when ImageResourceObserver is added in
ImageResource::addObserver().
This CL do the same thing in ImageResource::didAddClient() to ensure |m_image|
is non-null when ImageResource is reused after pruning.

This is regression since ImageResourceClient was split into ResourceClient and
ImageResourceObserver but the |m_image| re-creation logic was put only in the
ImageResourceObserver path and not in the ResourceClient path:
  https://codereview.chromium.org/1706083002
  https://codereview.chromium.org/1728313003

BUG=618597, 587663
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2141843003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#405024}
(cherry picked from commit d415aad374ad81906840afbf4c05f0594f1f581b)

Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/c2ef272fdddd2608b0aed1ff0eb0c13fa04d4bc4

[hiroshige, 2016-07-22 05:55:02]

Description was changed from

==========
Ensure |m_image| is (re-)created in ImageResource::didAddClient()

After ImageResource is pruned, |m_image| can be turned into null, but is not
re-created when ResourceClient is added to ImageResource later.
We re-create |m_image| when ImageResourceObserver is added in
ImageResource::addObserver().
This CL do the same thing in ImageResource::didAddClient() to ensure |m_image|
is non-null when ImageResource is reused after pruning.

This is regression since ImageResourceClient was split into ResourceClient and
ImageResourceObserver but the |m_image| re-creation logic was put only in the
ImageResourceObserver path and not in the ResourceClient path:
  https://codereview.chromium.org/1706083002
  https://codereview.chromium.org/1728313003

BUG=618597, 587663

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2141843003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#405024}
(cherry picked from commit d415aad374ad81906840afbf4c05f0594f1f581b)
==========

to

==========
Ensure |m_image| is (re-)created in ImageResource::didAddClient()

After ImageResource is pruned, |m_image| can be turned into null, but is not
re-created when ResourceClient is added to ImageResource later.
We re-create |m_image| when ImageResourceObserver is added in
ImageResource::addObserver().
This CL do the same thing in ImageResource::didAddClient() to ensure |m_image|
is non-null when ImageResource is reused after pruning.

This is regression since ImageResourceClient was split into ResourceClient and
ImageResourceObserver but the |m_image| re-creation logic was put only in the
ImageResourceObserver path and not in the ResourceClient path:
  https://codereview.chromium.org/1706083002
  https://codereview.chromium.org/1728313003

BUG=618597, 587663

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2141843003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#405024}
(cherry picked from commit d415aad374ad81906840afbf4c05f0594f1f581b)

Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/c2ef272fdddd2608b0aed1ff0eb0...
==========

[hiroshige, 2016-07-22 05:55:05]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) manually as
c2ef272fdddd2608b0aed1ff0eb0c13fa04d4bc4.

[vabr (Chromium), 2016-07-22 08:47:50]

On 2016/07/22 05:55:05, hiroshige wrote:
> Committed patchset #1 (id:1) manually as
> c2ef272fdddd2608b0aed1ff0eb0c13fa04d4bc4.

Hi, your merge seems to have broken compilation on beta builders. I'll revert
the merge soon, please contact me asap if you have other plans.

Cheers,
Vaclav

[hiroshige, 2016-07-22 08:48:33]

On 2016/07/22 08:47:50, vabr (Chromium) wrote:
> On 2016/07/22 05:55:05, hiroshige wrote:
> > Committed patchset #1 (id:1) manually as
> > c2ef272fdddd2608b0aed1ff0eb0c13fa04d4bc4.
> 
> Hi, your merge seems to have broken compilation on beta builders. I'll revert
> the merge soon, please contact me asap if you have other plans.
> 
> Cheers,
> Vaclav

Already reverted (Issue 630531).

[vabr (Chromium), 2016-07-22 09:04:26]

On 2016/07/22 08:48:33, hiroshige wrote:
> On 2016/07/22 08:47:50, vabr (Chromium) wrote:
> > On 2016/07/22 05:55:05, hiroshige wrote:
> > > Committed patchset #1 (id:1) manually as
> > > c2ef272fdddd2608b0aed1ff0eb0c13fa04d4bc4.
> > 
> > Hi, your merge seems to have broken compilation on beta builders. I'll
revert
> > the merge soon, please contact me asap if you have other plans.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Vaclav
> 
> Already reverted (Issue 630531).

Thank you! :)