Some callers treating XID = 0 as a sign for non-existing resource.
Practically should not happen, but nevertheless adding extra
protection, just in case.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The old PCCONS driver only seems to be used on minimal install disks and
cannot coexist with newer ones (at least that's the feedback I've gotten
from BSD community), so there's probably no practical use case for
supporting it in Xorg anymore.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Now that the name clash on GC type between Xserver and xlib has been fixed,
there's no need to do the special renaming hack anymore.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Both xlib as well as the Xserver use the same identifier "GC" for
different types. While on xlib it's just the numerical ID of a GC,
the xserver defines a struct for it by the same name. This is this
ugly and needs ridiculous hacks for Xserver code that needs xlib.
Easy to solve by just renaming the GC typedef to GCRec (consistent
with how we're naming other structs) and replacing GC* by GCPtr.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The function actually operates on ClientRec, so we can pass it in
directly, so it doesn't need to fetch it from clients[] array itself.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's only caller already has a pointer to client struct, so no need to
let this function look it up again in the global clients array.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need to have it ripped into two pieces, just making upcoming
changes more complicated.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Align the function's parameter names with those defined in the prototype.
Especially it makes code easier to understand if the result parameter
is also named "result" here, as in the prototype.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Improve in-code docs of some request handlers, so it becomes a bit
more obvious what they're doing.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Pass each client we're considering to report through XaceHookClientAccess(),
so security extensions have a chance to filter them out.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Pass each client we're considering to report through XaceHookClientAccess(),
so security extensions have a chance to filter them out.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Pass each client we're considering to report through XaceHookClientAccess(),
so security extensions have a chance to filter them out.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Pass each client we're considering to report through XaceHookClientAccess(),
so security extensions have a chance to filter them out.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This header isn't part of SDK and no external module using those functions,
so no need to keep them exported.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This header needs to be included first, otherwise things can easily get really
messed up. The current code only works by accident, because some other header
already including it early enough - but a subtle change in include order
can easy break it.
Thus, always make sure the header is really included first.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This header needs to be included first, otherwise things can easily get really
messed up. The current code only works by accident, because some other header
already including it early enough - but a subtle change in include order
can easy break it.
Thus, always make sure the header is really included first.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This header needs to be included first, otherwise things can easily get really
messed up. The current code only works by accident, because some other header
already including it early enough - but a subtle change in include order
can easy break it.
Thus, always make sure the header is really included first.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This header needs to be included first, otherwise things can easily get really
messed up. The current code only works by accident, because some other header
already including it early enough - but a subtle change in include order
can easy break it.
Thus, always make sure the header is really included first.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This file had been changed manually several times or at least a decode now,
so the claim it's being auto-generated isn't valid anymore.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This file had been changed manually several times or at least a decode now,
so the claim it's being auto-generated isn't valid anymore.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Usually no*Extension fields shouldn't be needed by drivers, but there
are a few exceptions: some drivers need to know whether composite or
Xinerama are active.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only used inside EXA code, not used by any drivers, so no need to
keep it exported any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used by anybody, neither Xserver nor drivers, so no need to
keep it around any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult