On 5 June 2016 at 22:36, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5 June 2016 at 22:17, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 5 June 2016 at 22:13, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 5 June 2016 at 17:56, Samuel Pitoiset <samuel.pitoi...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> We should not call nouveau_bufctx_reset() inside a validate function. >>>>> This seems to contradict the changes introduced in nvc0_compute.c. >>>>> Worth explaining a bit better the dos and don'ts ? >>>>> >>>> As this is already in master, can you please provide a more >>>> elaborate/correct summary for -stable ? >>> >>> I think it's fine as is. >>> >>> Do: reset bufctx when setting dirty bit >>> Don't: reset bufctx in validate logic, since it's "too late" by then. >>> (Not strictly wrong, but just should do it earlier.) >> >> So nvc0_compute_*validate*_surfaces is not validate logic ? Err... >> what a confusing name it has ;-) > > It validates compute. And it invalidates (and clears) the 3d bin. > So one can reset_bufctx(3d) from the compute validate and vice-versa. While doing reset_bufctx(foo) from foo validate is a bad idea ? Shouldn't one just say so in the commit message ?
-Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
