Den 28.01.2019 09.10, skrev Gerd Hoffmann:
>>> The cursor must be set again after creating the primary surface.
>>> Also drop the error message.
>
>>> if (!bo->is_primary) {
>>> - if (!same_shadow)
>>> + if (!same_shadow) {
>>> qxl_io_create_primary(qdev, 0, bo);
>>> + qxl_primary_apply_cursor(plane);
>>> + }
>>> bo->is_primary = true;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't see how the commit message matches what you're doing. It gives
>> the impression that it must be applied under yet another condition, but
>> the condition for applying the cursor is changed from bo_old->is_primary
>> to !bo->is_primary.
>
> The qxl device ties the cursor to the primary surface. Therefore
> calling qxl_io_destroy_primary() and qxl_io_create_primary() to switch
> the framebuffer causes the cursor information being lost and the driver
> must re-apply it.
>
> The correct call order to do that is qxl_io_destroy_primary() +
> qxl_io_create_primary() + qxl_primary_apply_cursor().
>
> The old code did qxl_io_destroy_primary() + qxl_primary_apply_cursor() +
> qxl_io_create_primary(). Due to qxl_primary_apply_cursor request being
> queued in a ringbuffer and qxl_io_create_primary() trapping to the
> hypervisor instantly there is a high chance that qxl_io_create_primary()
> is processed first even with the wrong call order. But it's racy and
> thus not reliable.
>
>> It probably makes sense to someone that knows the driver.
>
> If the above explains things better to you I should probably replace the
> commit message with that.
>
This is actually my first review of a driver that I'm not familiar with.
I'm not quite sure how much in depth understanding that is required to
put my ack on it. Going further into the patchset I realised that
there's no way that I can verify the logic without being intimate with
the driver. So I have tried to verify things from a kms point of view.
I liked your expanded explanation better.
Noralf.
>> Acked-by: Noralf Trønnes <nor...@tronnes.org>
>
> thanks,
> Gerd
>
