On 10.06.2010 21:14, Keith Whitwell wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 11:32 -0700, Roland Scheidegger wrote: >> On 10.06.2010 17:12, Keith Whitwell wrote: >>> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 07:29 -0700, Brian Paul wrote: >>>> Keith Whitwell wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 07:08 -0700, Roland Scheidegger wrote: >>>>>> On 10.06.2010 11:30, Keith Whitwell wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 13:26 -0700, Roland Scheidegger wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've created a new branch gallium-array-textures which has some more >>>>>>>> interface changes, this time to support array textures basically. >>>>>>>> Nothing has been adapted to these changes yet (I'll do that it should >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> mostly trivial as long as array textures aren't actually supported by >>>>>>>> the driver or even mesa state tracker), but now would be a good time if >>>>>>>> you have some comments for the proposed interface changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Roland >>>>>>> Roland, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This looks great! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Couple of comments -- you're now using the term "layer" in various >>>>>>> places, but there is no strong definition of what that means - except in >>>>>>> the patch comment, which isn't useful once the patch is committed. Can >>>>>>> you define this term somewhere in the documentation? >>>>>> Ok will do. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, there are a couple of things that look like typos in the interface >>>>>>> change diff, but I'm sure you'll find those the first time you try to >>>>>>> compile this. eg: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> void (*resource_copy_region)(struct pipe_context *pipe, >>>>>>> struct pipe_resource *dst, >>>>>>> - struct pipe_subresource subdst, >>>>>>> + unsigned level, >>>>>>> unsigned dstx, unsigned dsty, unsigned >>>>>>> dstz, >>>>>>> struct pipe_resource *src, >>>>>>> - struct pipe_subresource subsrc, >>>>>>> - unsigned srcx, unsigned srcy, unsigned >>>>>>> srcz, >>>>>>> - unsigned width, unsigned height); >>>>>>> + unsigned level, >>>>>>> + const struct pipe_box *); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems like you end up with two parameters named "level" ?? >>>>>> Yes, I had already fixed this locally. >>>>>> create_surface also had a bug (still got passed pipe_screen instead of >>>>>> pipe_context since it moved to context), as well as I need to store the >>>>>> context itself in pipe_surface (much like pipe_sampler_view does). >>>>>> That actually was a bit non-trivial since some state trackers don't >>>>>> really have a context handy when they called the former >>>>>> get_tex_surface() (glx, wgl and so on statetrackers not the rendering >>>>>> ones). Some of them did, though, already have their own context (for >>>>>> resource_copy_region, for instance) so I'm about to do this in a similar >>>>>> fashion. >>>>>> Actually, I was wondering if surface_destroy() should also get passed in >>>>>> a context - seems strange since it already stores the context, but this >>>>>> is exactly what sampler_view_destroy() does, which I'd like to see as a >>>>>> very analogous function. >>>>> Yes, it should take a context, mainly for consistency. It helps when >>>>> wrapping/unwrapping these functions to have a consistent interface. >>>> Yes. The other reason is you have to be careful with objects that >>>> save context pointers when those objects might be shared among >>>> multiple contexts. >>>> >>>> If object A is created by context C1 and shared with context C2 and C1 >>>> gets destroyed, we're in trouble if we use A's stale context pointer. >>>> It's safer to use the context pointer that's passed to the function. >>>> >>>> I fixed a bug along those lines a couple months ago. See >>>> st_DeleteTextureObject(). >>> Anything created by a context in gallium is private to that context. >>> The shareable entities are created in the screen. In effect, Roland's >>> change makes surfaces private to the context. >>> >>> That may have effects elsewhere, eg in the mesa state tracker, which may >>> be relying on sharing surfaces (aka render_target_views, >>> depth_stencil_views) between contexts. >> I am actually wondering if we should have some different abstraction for >> "surfaces" which are used for presents etc. Clearly, the glx etc. state >> trackers have no intention for using these pipe_resources as render >> attachment points, hence it's not really the right abstraction. >> But I guess that can be figured out later. >> >> There's something else which is a bit ugly currently. pipe_surface >> includes an offset. > > That's bogus & left over from some distant past. Just remove it.
It is used in a lot of places still. Granted if drivers want to precalculate that they should do that in a driver specific subclass of pipe_surface, but the change in fact is already huge as-is... Roland _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
