On 12/05/2013 04:36 AM, Paul Berry wrote:
On 4 December 2013 15:07, Chad Versace <chad.vers...@linux.intel.com <mailto:chad.vers...@linux.intel.com>> wrote:bugget, verticeally, and vestically! oh my! Wow, I wish I could say I did all those typos on purpose. Those are hilarious! They're all fixed now. Patches 1-6 are Reviewed-by: Chad Versace <chad.vers...@linux.intel.com <mailto:chad.vers...@linux.intel.com>> But this patch 7... If the user specifies an ill-aligned clear rectangle, does this code clear a slightly larger, well-aligned rectangle? In other words, will this clear pixels outside the user-specified clear rectangle? Local inspection of the code suggests so to me. But my global understanding of these codepaths is vague. Ken is right in his response about this--partial fast clears never happen because of the !partial_clear check, so the extra pixels that get cleared are always outside the bounds of the buffer (and hence irrelevant). Thanks to tiling, there's no worry about overflowing into memory owned by other regions--the extra pixels that get cleared always belong to tiles that contain in-bounds pixels. In theory I believe we could do partial clears if we first verified that they were aligned, but (a) the bspec doesn't recommend it, and (b) I doubt there would be much benefit, since sufficiently aligned clears that don't clear the entire buffer are probably quite rare. I'll follow up with a patch that improves the comments to clarify this.
Great. Then this patch has my r-b too. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
