Add |needs_resize_ack| flag to ViewMsg_Resize

Add |needs_resize_ack| flag to ViewMsg_Resize

This avoids the needs for duplicating the increasingly complicated
logic in the renderer.

There should be no functional change.

BUG=38011
Committed: https://crrev.com/4e33daeb908406a54fea9bc3a30554aec9474571
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#318107}

[no sievers, 2015-02-25 00:53:51]

sievers@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ piman@chromium.org

[no sievers, 2015-02-25 00:54:02]

ptal

[no sievers, 2015-02-25 00:58:59]

https://codereview.chromium.org/953233002/diff/1/content/renderer/render_widg...
File content/renderer/render_widget.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/953233002/diff/1/content/renderer/render_widg...
content/renderer/render_widget.cc:819: } else if
(!resizing_mode_selector_->is_synchronous_mode()) {
Now I'm probably missing to make sure that resize_ack == NO_RESIZE_ACK in that
case.

[no sievers, 2015-02-25 01:11:46]

https://codereview.chromium.org/953233002/diff/1/content/renderer/render_widg...
File content/renderer/render_widget.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/953233002/diff/1/content/renderer/render_widg...
content/renderer/render_widget.cc:819: } else if
(!resizing_mode_selector_->is_synchronous_mode()) {
On 2015/02/25 00:58:59, sievers wrote:
> Now I'm probably missing to make sure that resize_ack == NO_RESIZE_ACK in that
> case.

Ok, this is for webkit layout tests. So I guess I have to keep this.
And I assume this corresponds to
RenderWidgetHost::g_check_for_pending_resize_ack?

So it doesn't simplify the code as is yet. But it means it will allow us to
either
a) not do anything special for fixing the original bug I wanted to fix (but only
add logic to the browser)
b) set a sort of fake msg here to handle cases here where the browser wants an
ACK, but we are not compositing

[no sievers, 2015-02-25 01:13:26]

On 2015/02/25 01:11:46, sievers wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/953233002/diff/1/content/renderer/render_widg...
> File content/renderer/render_widget.cc (left):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/953233002/diff/1/content/renderer/render_widg...
> content/renderer/render_widget.cc:819: } else if
> (!resizing_mode_selector_->is_synchronous_mode()) {
> On 2015/02/25 00:58:59, sievers wrote:
> > Now I'm probably missing to make sure that resize_ack == NO_RESIZE_ACK in
that
> > case.
> 
> Ok, this is for webkit layout tests. So I guess I have to keep this.


Actually nevermind... this can go if this is decided simply on the browser side
now.

[piman, 2015-02-25 01:38:31]

piman@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jochen@chromium.org

[piman, 2015-02-25 01:38:32]

https://codereview.chromium.org/953233002/diff/1/content/renderer/render_widg...
File content/renderer/render_widget.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/953233002/diff/1/content/renderer/render_widg...
content/renderer/render_widget.cc:819: } else if
(!resizing_mode_selector_->is_synchronous_mode()) {
On 2015/02/25 01:11:46, sievers wrote:
> On 2015/02/25 00:58:59, sievers wrote:
> > Now I'm probably missing to make sure that resize_ack == NO_RESIZE_ACK in
that
> > case.
> 
> Ok, this is for webkit layout tests.

Yeah... +jochen.

> So I guess I have to keep this.
> And I assume this corresponds to
> RenderWidgetHost::g_check_for_pending_resize_ack?

It's related. I wonder if there's a way to do this nicer from the browser side.

> 
> So it doesn't simplify the code as is yet. But it means it will allow us to
> either
> a) not do anything special for fixing the original bug I wanted to fix (but
only
> add logic to the browser)
> b) set a sort of fake msg here to handle cases here where the browser wants an
> ACK, but we are not compositing


Yes, I think it's a win as is.

[piman, 2015-02-25 01:39:05]

LGTM if layout tests pass.

[no sievers, 2015-02-25 19:07:22]

The CQ bit was checked by sievers@chromium.org

[no sievers, 2015-02-25 19:07:22]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from piman@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/953233002/#ps20001 (title:
"remove DCHECK()")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-25 19:08:07]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/953233002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-25 19:31:27]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-25 19:31:28]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)

[no sievers, 2015-02-25 20:31:47]

sievers@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ wfh@chromium.org

[no sievers, 2015-02-25 20:32:00]

+wfh@ for adding flag in content/common/view_messages.h

[Will Harris, 2015-02-25 20:32:36]

lgtm for content/common/view_messages.h

[no sievers, 2015-02-25 20:36:54]

The CQ bit was checked by sievers@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-25 20:38:25]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/953233002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-25 20:44:17]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-25 20:45:12]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/4e33daeb908406a54fea9bc3a30554aec9474571
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#318107}