On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Paul Berry <stereotype...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 December 2013 15:07, Chad Versace <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> >> >> 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. > Reviewed-by: Anuj Phogat <anuj.pho...@gmail.com>
> _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
