cc: Added tile bundles

cc/layers/picture_layer_impl.cc

Index: cc/layers/picture_layer_impl.cc
diff --git a/cc/layers/picture_layer_impl.cc b/cc/layers/picture_layer_impl.cc
index 39c0cb9e9d1dc01bd898583ec5b5de74078cfa67..7e7666fba5a6a76fd875d5207001ba902704441d 100644
--- a/cc/layers/picture_layer_impl.cc
+++ b/cc/layers/picture_layer_impl.cc
@@ -179,10 +179,10 @@ void PictureLayerImpl::AppendQuads(QuadSink* quad_sink,
         } else if (mode == ManagedTileState::TileVersion::PICTURE_PILE_MODE) {
           color = DebugColors::PictureTileBorderColor();
           width = DebugColors::PictureTileBorderWidth(layer_tree_impl());
-        } else if (iter->priority(ACTIVE_TREE).resolution == HIGH_RESOLUTION) {
+        } else if (iter.priority().resolution == HIGH_RESOLUTION) {
           color = DebugColors::HighResTileBorderColor();
           width = DebugColors::HighResTileBorderWidth(layer_tree_impl());
-        } else if (iter->priority(ACTIVE_TREE).resolution == LOW_RESOLUTION) {
+        } else if (iter.priority().resolution == LOW_RESOLUTION) {
           color = DebugColors::LowResTileBorderColor();
           width = DebugColors::LowResTileBorderWidth(layer_tree_impl());
         } else if (iter->contents_scale() > contents_scale_x()) {
@@ -479,6 +479,11 @@ scoped_refptr<Tile> PictureLayerImpl::CreateTile(PictureLayerTiling* tiling,
       is_using_lcd_text_);
 }
 
+scoped_refptr<TileBundle> PictureLayerImpl::CreateTileBundle(
+    gfx::Rect bundle_rect) {
+  return layer_tree_impl()->tile_manager()->CreateTileBundle(bundle_rect);
+}
+
 void PictureLayerImpl::UpdatePile(Tile* tile) {
   tile->set_picture_pile(pile_);
 }
@@ -499,6 +504,14 @@ const PictureLayerTiling* PictureLayerImpl::GetTwinTiling(
   return NULL;
 }
 
+bool PictureLayerImpl::IsActive() const {

[enne (OOO), 2013/11/27 01:38:05]

What did you think about my suggestion to remove these?

[vmpstr, 2013/11/27 21:09:36]

Sorry, I thought I replied to this one. I don't mind doing it, but I think that
will come at a cost of adding DidBecomePending callback. Or am I
misunderstanding something?

My comment was basically that we'll have to keep state and make sure it's up to
date, which seems like an optimization for a price of possible inconsistent
state? I don't know :P I can change it if you feel that it will be better.

[enne (OOO), 2013/11/27 22:21:15]

You could set the tiling to be pending when it becomes recycled and that would
save having the callback.

This is a wishywashy reason, but I feel like it's cleaner to have the tiling
sort of go through clear states of pending -> active -> recycled -> pending.  If
it's a client callback, you could just be like "I'm pending now" or "I'm active
now" at arbitrary points in time in a test, which is kind of not real and breaks
assumptions of how it should be used.  It's also a bit redundant.  Either the
layer tells the tiling what state it's in or the tiling asks the layer what
state it's in, but maybe not both?

+  return layer_tree_impl()->IsActiveTree();
+}
+
+bool PictureLayerImpl::IsPending() const {
+  return layer_tree_impl()->IsPendingTree();
+}
+
 gfx::Size PictureLayerImpl::CalculateTileSize(
     gfx::Size content_bounds) const {
   if (is_mask_) {
@@ -712,7 +725,7 @@ void PictureLayerImpl::MarkVisibleResourcesAsRequired() const {
       // This iteration is over the visible content rect which is potentially
       // less conservative than projecting the viewport into the layer.
       // Ignore tiles that are know to be outside the viewport.
-      if (iter->priority(PENDING_TREE).distance_to_visible_in_pixels != 0)
+      if (iter.priority().distance_to_visible_in_pixels != 0)
         continue;
 
       missing_region.Subtract(iter.geometry_rect());
@@ -762,6 +775,8 @@ bool PictureLayerImpl::MarkVisibleTilesAsRequired(
     float contents_scale,
     gfx::Rect rect,
     Region* missing_region) const {
+  DCHECK(layer_tree_impl()->IsPendingTree());
+
   bool twin_had_missing_tile = false;
   for (PictureLayerTiling::CoverageIterator iter(tiling,
                                                  contents_scale,
@@ -776,7 +791,7 @@ bool PictureLayerImpl::MarkVisibleTilesAsRequired(
     // This iteration is over the visible content rect which is potentially
     // less conservative than projecting the viewport into the layer.
     // Ignore tiles that are know to be outside the viewport.
-    if (tile->priority(PENDING_TREE).distance_to_visible_in_pixels != 0)
+    if (iter.priority().distance_to_visible_in_pixels != 0)
       continue;
 
     // If the missing region doesn't cover it, this tile is fully
@@ -787,7 +802,8 @@ bool PictureLayerImpl::MarkVisibleTilesAsRequired(
     // If the twin tile isn't ready to draw, then this tile isn't
     // required to prevent flashing.
     if (optional_twin_tiling) {
-      Tile* twin_tile = optional_twin_tiling->TileAt(iter.i(), iter.j());
+      Tile* twin_tile =
+          optional_twin_tiling->TileAt(ACTIVE_TREE, iter.i(), iter.j());
       if (!twin_tile || !twin_tile->IsReadyToDraw()) {
         twin_had_missing_tile = true;
         continue;