From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MWAgC-0002iH-Jp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:02:56 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MWAg7-0002ZD-He
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:02:55 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41095 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MWAg7-0002Yu-7a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:02:51 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:45172)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1MWAg6-0002ji-Ic
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:02:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4A706491.8040105@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:02:41 +0200
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2 of 3] a single vnc server surface
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0907291252510.23609@kaball-desktop>	<4A705DE1.20704@redhat.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.0907291535480.31281@kaball-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0907291535480.31281@kaball-desktop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 07/29/09 16:40, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> I doubt you did any copyrect testing.  It is broken in master[1], and
>> this patch breaks it even more.
>
> No I didn't: I notice that your fix wasn't applied yet but can be easily
> applied on top of this patch.

No, it can't.  Well, it will apply.  It will also build with the small 
fixup.  But the code isn't correct then.

The complete workflow of your patch was appearently designed without 
copyrect in mind.  The whole point of copyrect is to avoid sending 
screen updates.  Your patch doesn't handle that at all.

cheers,
   Gerd