Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57582) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Um1Rw-0004tq-Ip for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:43:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Um1Rr-0000Ns-TI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:43:52 -0400 From: Peter Wu Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:43:42 +0200 Message-ID: <2282258.ks7pGhyqjl@al> In-Reply-To: <20130610123328.GF3636@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> References: <11837115.9GZ72nQAUt@al> <20130610123328.GF3636@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] gtk: implement -full-screen and -no-frame List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Monday 10 June 2013 14:33:28 Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 09.06.2013 um 12:30 hat Peter Wu geschrieben: > > Aiming for GTK as replacement for SDL, features like -full-screen and > > -no-frame should also be implemented. > > > > > > > > Bringing the window into full-screen mode is done by faking activating the > > full screen menu item with a NULL menu item (which currently is not used > > by gd_menu_full_screen). This is done after showing the windows to make > > the cursor and menu hidden. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Wu > > --- > > > > include/ui/console.h | 2 +- > > ui/gtk.c | 10 +++++++++- > > vl.c | 2 +- > > 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/ui/console.h b/include/ui/console.h > > index 4307b5f..7174ba9 100644 > > --- a/include/ui/console.h > > +++ b/include/ui/console.h > > @@ -339,6 +339,6 @@ int index_from_keycode(int code); > > > > > > /* gtk.c */ > > void early_gtk_display_init(void); > > > > -void gtk_display_init(DisplayState *ds); > > +void gtk_display_init(DisplayState *ds, int full_screen, int no_frame); > > Should the new arguments be bool? Probably yes, but for consistency with the existing types I kept it as int. A future patch could change all uses of "int" to "bool" where 1 or 0 are used, do you prefer to use bool here anyway? Regards, Peter