Handle the case when the GrResourceCache timestamp wraps.

Handle the case when the GrResourceCache timestamp wraps.

NOTREECHECKS=true

Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/ddf30e64fe474847b204d7062fad3341d245062c

[bsalomon, 2015-02-19 18:15:31]

bsalomon@google.com changed reviewers:
+ robertphillips@google.com

[robertphillips, 2015-02-19 18:47:33]

lgtm + nits

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp
File src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/src/gpu/GrResourceCache....
src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp:94: 
adding _to_ ?

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/src/gpu/GrResourceCache....
src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp:95: // We must set the timestamp before adding the
array in case the timestamp wraps and we wind
iterating _over_ ?

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/src/gpu/GrResourceCache....
src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp:455: if (count) {
resource -> resources

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/src/gpu/GrResourceCache....
src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp:474: 
_arrays_ based ?

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/src/gpu/GrResourceCache....
src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp:497: while (currNP < fNonpurgeableResources.count())
{
rm a tab level ?

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/tests/ResourceCacheTest.cpp
File tests/ResourceCacheTest.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/tests/ResourceCacheTest....
tests/ResourceCacheTest.cpp:928: kCount = 50,
reosource -> resources

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/tests/ResourceCacheTest....
tests/ResourceCacheTest.cpp:980: } else {
Can we assert that the time stamps are less than kCount?

[bsalomon, 2015-02-19 18:51:56]

New patchsets have been uploaded after l-g-t-m from robertphillips@google.com

[bsalomon, 2015-02-19 18:52:54]

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp
File src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/src/gpu/GrResourceCache....
src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp:94: 
On 2015/02/19 18:47:32, robertphillips wrote:
> adding _to_ ?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/src/gpu/GrResourceCache....
src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp:95: // We must set the timestamp before adding the
array in case the timestamp wraps and we wind
On 2015/02/19 18:47:32, robertphillips wrote:
> iterating _over_ ?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/src/gpu/GrResourceCache....
src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp:455: if (count) {
On 2015/02/19 18:47:33, robertphillips wrote:
> resource -> resources

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/src/gpu/GrResourceCache....
src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp:474: 
On 2015/02/19 18:47:32, robertphillips wrote:
> _arrays_ based ?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/src/gpu/GrResourceCache....
src/gpu/GrResourceCache.cpp:497: while (currNP < fNonpurgeableResources.count())
{
On 2015/02/19 18:47:32, robertphillips wrote:
> rm a tab level ?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/tests/ResourceCacheTest.cpp
File tests/ResourceCacheTest.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/916103006/diff/40001/tests/ResourceCacheTest....
tests/ResourceCacheTest.cpp:980: } else {
On 2015/02/19 18:47:33, robertphillips wrote:
> Can we assert that the time stamps are less than kCount?

I'd have to expose access to the time stamp here. Also, I feel like that'd be
testing the particulars of the implementation rather than just correctness (that
the lru purgeable resources are purged).

[bsalomon, 2015-02-19 18:53:45]

The CQ bit was checked by bsalomon@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-19 18:53:55]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/916103006/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-19 18:55:15]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-19 18:55:16]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  Build-Ubuntu13.10-Clang-x86_64-Debug-Trybot on client.skia.compile
(JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/client.skia.compile/builders/Build-Ubuntu13.10-Cl...)
  Build-Ubuntu13.10-GCC4.8-Arm7-Debug-Android-Trybot on client.skia.compile
(JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/client.skia.compile/builders/Build-Ubuntu13.10-GC...)

[bsalomon, 2015-02-19 19:22:52]

The CQ bit was checked by bsalomon@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-19 19:23:05]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/916103006/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-19 19:24:25]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-19 19:24:26]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  Build-Ubuntu13.10-GCC4.8-Arm7-Debug-Android-Trybot on client.skia.compile
(JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/client.skia.compile/builders/Build-Ubuntu13.10-GC...)

[bsalomon, 2015-02-19 19:31:00]

The CQ bit was checked by bsalomon@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-19 19:32:05]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/916103006/100001

[bsalomon, 2015-02-19 19:38:21]

The CQ bit was unchecked by bsalomon@google.com

[bsalomon, 2015-02-19 19:38:30]

The CQ bit was checked by bsalomon@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-19 19:38:36]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/916103006/100001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-19 19:38:50]

Committed patchset #6 (id:100001) as
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/ddf30e64fe474847b204d7062fad3341d245062c