Hi Emil, >-----Original Message----- >From: Emil Velikov [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 9:52 PM >To: Marathe, Yogesh <[email protected]> >Cc: Eric Engestrom <[email protected]>; mesa- >[email protected] >Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/3] egl: Wrap dri3 surface primitive around >dri2 >egl surface > >On 15 September 2017 at 16:48, Marathe, Yogesh <[email protected]> >wrote: >> Hi Eric, >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Eric Engestrom [mailto:[email protected]] >>>Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 7:13 PM >>>To: Marathe, Yogesh <[email protected]> >>>Cc: [email protected] >>>Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/3] egl: Wrap dri3 surface primitive >>>around dri2 egl surface >>> >>>On Friday, 2017-09-15 12:06:57 +0530, [email protected] wrote: >>>> From: Yogesh Marathe <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> Originally dri3 egl surface was wrapped around _EGLSurface. To >>>> support explicit sync, new variables (e.g. enable_out_fence) were >>>> added to dri2_egl_surface. As we reference these new variables we >>>> write on to >>>> dri3 loader bits. These get toggled later in execution due to dri3 >>>> loader. This results in enable_out_fence to have garbage value and >>>> further triggers an assert on dri3 platforms even where fences are >>>> not supported in kernel. >>>> >>>> Thanks to Rafael Antognolli, Emil Velikov and Mark Janes for >>>> catching and root causing this. >>>> >>>> Tested with Intel Mesa CI. >>> >>>I assume you only tested the result of the 3 patches combined, because >>>I'm pretty sure mesa can't compile after patches 1/3 and 2/3: 1/3 >>>makes use of the s/base/surf.base/ change before this patch does that >>>change, and with this patch >>>(2/3) the changes in 3/3 are needed as well. >>> >>>Please run >>>$ git rebase --interactive --exec make origin/master on your branch to >>>make sure each commit compiles. >> >> Ok. Yes I tested the result combined. My assumption was these three >> will always be applied or reverted together. 2/3 and 3/3 can't be >> separated anyways, but I split them based on irc discussion. >> >> I'll run the command you've mentioned so 1/3 will be compliable >> individually and 2/3, 3/3 together. I hope that’s fine. >> >Seems like you've went in the opposite direction to what I mentioned on IRC. >There's a few rules which apply to nearly every project: > - though shalt not intentionally break code, only to fix it with sequential > commit > - though shalt not merge logically separate changes into the same patch
My last question on this remained unanswered / was lost in other discussion and I was exactly asking this, how to split it in this case. I thought I can not separate platform_x11_dri3 from 1/3 but your recent reply on 1/3 clarifies. I need to use _eglInitSurface instead of dri2_init_surface. Anyways, now 1/3 will be individually compliable and executable. 2/3 and 3/3 will be together compliable and executable. All changes pertaining to platform_x11_dri3 will be into 2/3 and 3/3. Does this sound ok? > >There's expeptions of course, but on an extremely rare situations. >I'll follow up exactly on each each/how it could be split. > >-Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
