On 15 September 2017 at 16:48, Marathe, Yogesh <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Eric Engestrom [mailto:eric.engest...@imgtec.com] >>Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 7:13 PM >>To: Marathe, Yogesh <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> >>Cc: mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org >>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, yogesh.mara...@intel.com wrote: >>> From: Yogesh Marathe <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> >>> >>> 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
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 mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
