Adding SatisfySequence and RequireSequence to SurfaceManager

cc/surfaces/surface_manager.cc

Index: cc/surfaces/surface_manager.cc
diff --git a/cc/surfaces/surface_manager.cc b/cc/surfaces/surface_manager.cc
index 34bd3948255f19625156ef54b0b5bdc6ae80e388..c4dcc5b46cf5eb58a3ee195ddbba829760429155 100644
--- a/cc/surfaces/surface_manager.cc
+++ b/cc/surfaces/surface_manager.cc
@@ -77,13 +77,20 @@ void SurfaceManager::Destroy(std::unique_ptr<Surface> surface) {
   GarbageCollectSurfaces();
 }
 
-void SurfaceManager::DidSatisfySequences(const FrameSinkId& frame_sink_id,
-                                         std::vector<uint32_t>* sequence) {
+void SurfaceManager::RequireSequence(const SurfaceId& surface_id,
+                                     const SurfaceSequence& sequence) {
+  auto* surface = GetSurfaceForId(surface_id);
+  if (!surface) {
+    DLOG(ERROR) << "Attempting to require callback on nonexistent surface";

[danakj, 2017/01/09 19:27:10]

Maybe mention in a comment that this can occur from bad actors over ipc.
Otherwise it looks like this should be a dcheck.

+    return;
+  }
+  surface->AddDestructionDependency(sequence);
+}
+
+void SurfaceManager::SatisfySequence(const SurfaceSequence& sequence) {
   DCHECK(thread_checker_.CalledOnValidThread());
   DCHECK_EQ(lifetime_type_, LifetimeType::SEQUENCES);
-  for (uint32_t value : *sequence)
-    satisfied_sequences_.insert(SurfaceSequence(frame_sink_id, value));
-  sequence->clear();
+  satisfied_sequences_.insert(sequence);
   GarbageCollectSurfaces();
 }