I forgot to reply here on the list, I've just been talking about this with Tapani face to face.

My series rebased and fixed on top of mesa master branch from yesterday is here

Tapani was already taking rebased patches from above branch.

I originally stopped working on this set because I felt there was too much uncertainty if all places needed to be fixed could be found easily. Anyway, if you skip my patch for changes in glsl please check you have all places somehow handled which I had patched. All those patched places I dug up with Valgrind so they're 'real deal' where will get segfaults.


On 10.10.2016 14:52, Marek Olšák wrote:
I prefer some of my GLSL fixes in 1-4 over JP's changes, because they
seem cleaner to me.


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>>

                        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
                            happened to those patches.

                        There's bunch of patches like that in this series:

                        it looks like it just never landed as would have
                        required more testing
                        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

                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
            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_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 mailing list

Reply via email to