[Ozone-DRI] Migrate cursor to using ScanoutBuffer

[Ozone-DRI] Migrate cursor to using ScanoutBuffer

BUG=none
NOTRY=true

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=284176

[dnicoara, 2014-07-18 18:04:49]

PTAL

[alexst (slow to review), 2014-07-18 18:34:59]

https://codereview.chromium.org/407603002/diff/1/ui/ozone/platform/dri/dri_su...
File ui/ozone/platform/dri/dri_surface_factory.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/407603002/diff/1/ui/ozone/platform/dri/dri_su...
ui/ozone/platform/dri/dri_surface_factory.cc:146: cursor_buffers_[i] = new
DriBuffer(drm_);
nit: probably not a big deal, given things have to be really wrong for
initialization to fail, but we don't destroy the allocated buffers if
initialization fails.

[dnicoara, 2014-07-18 18:38:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/407603002/diff/1/ui/ozone/platform/dri/dri_su...
File ui/ozone/platform/dri/dri_surface_factory.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/407603002/diff/1/ui/ozone/platform/dri/dri_su...
ui/ozone/platform/dri/dri_surface_factory.cc:146: cursor_buffers_[i] = new
DriBuffer(drm_);
On 2014/07/18 18:34:59, alexst wrote:
> nit: probably not a big deal, given things have to be really wrong for
> initialization to fail, but we don't destroy the allocated buffers if
> initialization fails.

SFO keeps track of them and since they're scoped_refptrs they'll get destroyed
when SFO does.

I felt that destroying them early doesn't buy us anything, just makes the code
more complicated.

[alexst (slow to review), 2014-07-18 18:54:54]

> SFO keeps track of them and since they're scoped_refptrs they'll get destroyed
> when SFO does.
> 
> I felt that destroying them early doesn't buy us anything, just makes the code
> more complicated.

Right, I agree, it was just a note, my first e-mail was supposed to say lgtm, I
don't know what happened.

[dnicoara, 2014-07-18 18:57:55]

On 2014/07/18 18:54:54, alexst wrote:
> > SFO keeps track of them and since they're scoped_refptrs they'll get
destroyed
> > when SFO does.
> > 
> > I felt that destroying them early doesn't buy us anything, just makes the
code
> > more complicated.
> 
> Right, I agree, it was just a note, my first e-mail was supposed to say lgtm,
I
> don't know what happened.

:) Thanks! I thought you may have been thinking of some weird corner case.

[dnicoara, 2014-07-18 18:58:27]

The CQ bit was checked by dnicoara@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-18 19:00:57]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/dnicoara@chromium.org/407603002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-18 19:03:47]

Change committed as 284176