On 5 June 2016 at 23:22, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> 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 ? > > The commit message also doesn't explain what bufctx's are, what a > validation function is, and the overall structure of the nouveau code > and how it uses those bufctx's. > > You're arguing about clarity with the ~2 active developers/reviewers > who understand the code. What I'm saying is that with contradicting commit messages like this one there'll be little others who will understand it :-\
> I understand that this might be unclear to > you, but I know I'm not about to explain everything in commit messages > all the time -- too much effort for zero benefit. Case in point - had > this commit said "nvc0: fix validation logic" and left it at that, we > wouldn't be having this discussion. But there was a bit of an > explanation, that was perhaps not infinitely precise, and now there's > a long discussion about how it's unclear. > Looking from another angle - is false information better than no information ? All I was asking is to correct the commit message. I wasn't asking that one should explain reasoning behind it or anything deeper into the stack, which I believe was understood. Seems like that is too much to ask so I won't bother you guys any more. Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
