Move SharedBitmapManager implementation out of content/

components/display_compositor/interfaces/shared_bitmap_manager.mojom

Index: components/display_compositor/interfaces/shared_bitmap_manager.mojom
diff --git a/components/display_compositor/interfaces/shared_bitmap_manager.mojom b/components/display_compositor/interfaces/shared_bitmap_manager.mojom
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d41f90112b83a8ae6b52476aaed5f6ab1541dc92
--- /dev/null
+++ b/components/display_compositor/interfaces/shared_bitmap_manager.mojom
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+// Copyright 2017 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
+// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
+// found in the LICENSE file.
+
+module display_compositor.mojom;
+
+import "gpu/ipc/common/mailbox.mojom";
+
+// This interface is used for allocating shared bitmap memory from browser

[danakj, 2017/02/28 20:34:57]

from the display compositor, instead of from the browser process?

+// process. For mus+ash, this service will live in mus process.

[danakj, 2017/02/28 20:34:56]

mus process is ambiguous, there is mus gpu and window server, iiuc. It just
lives where the display compositor lives right. So maybe just say that and leave
out specific process?

+interface SharedBitmapManager {
+  // The 2 following methods belong to a future CC related mojom.
+  // For now they need to be part of this channel associated interface to
+  // prevent running into message ordering issues (CC trying to access a shared
+  // bitmap before the registration message below made it to the browser).

[danakj, 2017/02/28 20:34:57]

to the display compositor?

+  //
+  // Informs the browser that the child allocated a shared bitmap.

[danakj, 2017/02/28 20:34:56]

should these say display compositor instead of browser too?

+  AllocatedSharedBitmap(handle<shared_buffer> buffer, gpu.mojom.Mailbox id);
+
+  // Informs the browser that the child deleted a shared bitmap.
+  DeletedSharedBitmap(gpu.mojom.Mailbox id);
+};