On 10/10/2016 02:52 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
I prefer some of my GLSL fixes in 1-4 over JP's changes, because they seem cleaner to me.
Agreed, I was considering following patches from JP: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/93266/ https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/93262/ https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/93267/ these could be pushed separately and do not cause any functional change.
Marek On Oct 10, 2016 1:38 PM, "Tapani Pälli" <tapani.pa...@intel.com <mailto:tapani.pa...@intel.com>> wrote: On 10/10/2016 02:27 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com <mailto:tapani.pa...@intel.com>> wrote: On 10/10/2016 01:38 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com <mailto:mar...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com <mailto:tapani.pa...@intel.com>> wrote: On 10/08/2016 06:58 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote: FYI, we use ralloc for a lot more than just the glsl compiler so the first few changes make me a bit nervous. There was someone working on making our driver more I undefined-memory-friendly but I don't know what happened to those patches. There's bunch of patches like that in this series: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2016-June/120445.html <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2016-June/120445.html> it looks like it just never landed as would have required more testing on misc drivers? We can land at least some of the patches from that series. We still have to replace all non-GLSL uses of DECLARE_RALLOC.. with DECLARE_RZALLOC. BTW, people can still give Rbs on all patches except 5. This rzalloc thing isn't an issue and can be dealt with in a separate series (it can be done after this series lands). I agree these issues do not block review of the series. We just need to make sure it is absolutely safe before landing. As concrete example I got following segfault when I applied this series which is directly related to rzalloc issues. This was with 'shader_freeze' program, description in bug #94477 has link and build instructions for this if you want to try. When I applied JP's patches 4,5,6 (nir, i965_vec4, i965_fs changes) this segfault disappears. I meant that this series is safe to land without patch 5. Did you test it without patch 5? Ah sorry I managed to miss that. Now I did test and when reverting patch 5 this test passes fine. Makes sense to do patch 5 as a separate step when JP's changes land. // Tapani
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
