On 06/06/2016 12:08 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 5 June 2016 at 23:00, Samuel Pitoiset <samuel.pitoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/05/2016 11:50 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
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 ?
Because the common practice is to clear foo bins at the same place where the
dirty_3d |= foo is updated, this makes sense. :)
Yet the commit message does not say that, right ? It says "We should
not call nouveau_bufctx_reset() inside a validate function.", while
the patch does the complete opposite - it adds a call to
nouveau_bufctx_reset() inside a validate function.
All I'm asking is for the commit message to reflect the code change or
vice-versa. I hope I'm not being unreasonable ?
You are reasonable. I assume something like "nvc0: clear out surfaces
bins at the right place" (and explain why in the description) is more
close to what the code does.
Thanks
Emil
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
