On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:35 AM, Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> wrote:
> On 14 February 2018 at 16:21, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:13 AM, Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> > wrote: > >> Suggested fixup: https://hastebin.com/zaheyoriwa > >> > >> This makes sure we only try to allocate with modifiers when _both_ > >> winsys and driver support it. > > > > Ok, we clearly have different philosophies here so we should get that > > sorted. My philosophy is that the winsys code will look at the > > wsi_device::supports_modifiers flag and not ask for modifiers if it's > false. > > You seem to think that the winsys code should just go ahead and ask for > > modifiers all the time and we will try to deal with it in > wsi_create_native. > > Thoughts? Arguments? Strong opinions? > > > > If we keep my philosophy, we should add asserts to better document and > > enforce it. > I've added the following to the top of wsi_create_native_image: + /* If we don't support modifiers, the winsys code shouldn't be asking for + * an image with modifiers. + */ + assert(wsi->supports_modifiers || num_modifier_lists == 0); > Yeah, it was mostly based on missing the wsi->has_modifiers check in > the Wayland Wayland definitely has the check. I'll double-check on X11. > code, and it being totally absent in the X11/DRI3 code > (trivial to add). So my philosophy was mostly about avoiding asserts, > rather than strong feelings about who should do the filtering. > > I'm happy to stick with how you have it, plus asserts. Thanks for the > explanation! > > Cheers, > Daniel >
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
