Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test v5

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:11:07 +0100 "Ben Avison" wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:16:22 +0100, Pekka Paalanen > wrote: > > Changes in v5: > > Skip if fenced memory is not supported. > > OK, I see how you've done that - fence_get_page_size()

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH 1/4] Change conditions for setting FAST_PATH_SAMPLES_COVER_CLIP flags

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:35:03 +0100 "Ben Avison" wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:46:50 +0100, Pekka Paalanen > wrote: > > you're right, documenting this is important. However, I think this > > particular patch is not the best place, and here is why.

[Pixman] [PATCH 1/2] Remove the 8e extra safety margin in COVER_CLIP analysis

From: Ben Avison As discussed in http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pixman/2015-August/003905.html the 8 * pixman_fixed_e (8e) adjustment which was applied to the transformed coordinates is a legacy of rounding errors which used to occur in old versions of Pixman, but

[Pixman] [PATCH 0/2] Change conditions for setting FAST_PATH_SAMPLES_COVER_CLIP flags v2

From: Pekka Paalanen Hi, these two patches supersede the one patch "Change conditions for setting FAST_PATH_SAMPLES_COVER_CLIP flags". I mainly bikeshedded the comments. I also split it in two, because I realized that affine-bench would still work even if it was

[Pixman] [PATCH 2/2] affine-bench: remove 8e margin from COVER area

From: Ben Avison Patch "Remove the 8e extra safety margin in COVER_CLIP analysis" reduced the required image area for setting the COVER flags in pixman.c:analyze_extent(). Do the same reduction in affine-bench. Leaving the old calculations in place would be very

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH 1/4] Change conditions for setting FAST_PATH_SAMPLES_COVER_CLIP flags

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:13:08 +0100, Pekka Paalanen wrote: If you actually want to document things, then I think pixman/rounding.txt would be the right place (and another patch). After all, commit messages are only used to justify the patch, they are not documentation people

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH 1/2] Remove the 8e extra safety margin in COVER_CLIP analysis

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:30:23 +0100, Pekka Paalanen wrote: As samplers are allowed to fetch the pixel at x2 unconditionally, we require x1 >= 0 x2 < width I may be getting picky, but that's circular logic - the samplers are only allowed to fetch the pixel at x2