On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:08 AM Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 14:42, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 7:15 PM Bas Nieuwenhuizen < > b...@basnieuwenhuizen.nl> wrote: > >> > >> So I tried to test this with radv and got a bunch of crashes in CTS, > >> mostly around 3d image support: > >> > >> #3 0x00007ffff71a9396 in __assert_fail () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6 > >> #4 0x00007ffff69da3b4 in > >> Addr::V2::Gfx9Lib::HwlGetPreferredSurfaceSetting (this=0x555557661b30, > >> pIn=0x7fffffffd5f0, pOut=0x7fffffffd5d0) > >> at ../mesa/src/amd/addrlib/src/gfx9/gfx9addrlib.cpp:3684 > >> #5 0x00007ffff69cf331 in > >> Addr::V2::Lib::Addr2GetPreferredSurfaceSetting (this=0x555557661b30, > >> pIn=0x7fffffffd5f0, pOut=0x7fffffffd5d0) > >> at ../mesa/src/amd/addrlib/src/core/addrlib2.cpp:1742 > >> #6 0x00007ffff69c4e87 in Addr2GetPreferredSurfaceSetting > >> (hLib=0x555557661b30, pIn=0x7fffffffd5f0, pOut=0x7fffffffd5d0) > >> at ../mesa/src/amd/addrlib/src/addrinterface.cpp:1697 > >> #7 0x00007ffff69bf8d4 in gfx9_get_preferred_swizzle_mode > >> (addrlib=0x555557661b30, in=0x7fffffffd690, is_fmask=false, > >> flags=33555202, swizzle_mode=0x7fffffffd698) > >> > >> It seems to be caused by the explicit swizzle mode override that we do > with > >> > >> commit b64b7125586ce48232658cd860f549a6139b6ddd > >> Author: Marek Olšák <marek.ol...@amd.com> > >> Date: Mon Apr 2 12:54:52 2018 -0400 > >> > >> ac/surface/gfx9: request desired micro tile mode explicitly > >> > >> Tested-by: Dieter Nützel <die...@nuetzel-hh.de> > >> > >> > >> Since we never got a reason to have it (the commit message above is > >> not descriptive and the patch not reviewed) and this is the second > >> time already that this breaks stuff (The other was allowing S tiling > >> for raven displayable surfaces, per 7eff8d7d3564), maybe revert it and > >> let addrlib make the decision? > > > > > > Yes, my commits are mostly unreviewed. It's the norm now. Willing > reviewers don't exist anymore. I don't really mind that my patches are not > reviewed, but whoever complains that I push unreviewed commits should ask > himself why he didn't review them in their review period. That applies to > everybody. Either review regularly or accept that unreviewed commits are > normal. > > > > Secondly, past commits can't break future commits, so don't say it > breaks stuff again. It's illogical. > > > > There may be multiple reasons why the commit exists. As long as > reverting it doesn't break piglit / radeonsi, I'm OK with the reverting. > > Marek, > > There is no way anybody could review this commit, the commit log > contains 0 information on why or what the commit is doing or what it > fixes, there is nothing to say what the reviewer is looking out for. > > So maybe in future if you are pushing unreviewed commits in you could > add the multiple reasons to the commit log? clearly you wrote the > patch for a reason, adding the reason to the changelog shouldn't be a > major burden. > Yes, I can try to do that. Marek
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
