On 06/06/2016 12:30 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
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.
I'll make an effort the next time. At least, try to not introduce
contradictions between the code and the commit message.
Thanks
Emil
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
