Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)
On 27.4.2021 2.04, Svante Signell wrote: On Mon, 2021-04-26 at 23:43 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Hello Svante, For information, your patch got dropped because of #975658 Yes I know since a long time. And you did not care or anybody else either. So why bother... Why spend time on worthless issues? You need to send them upstream. Mesa is also carrying a patch which is basically useless since it again fails to build on hurd due to other issues. -- t
Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)
Svante Signell, le mar. 27 avril 2021 01:04:30 +0200, a ecrit: > On Mon, 2021-04-26 at 23:43 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > For information, your patch got dropped because of #975658 > > Yes I know since a long time. Ok, I hadn't seen it. > And you did not care or anybody else either. Well, usually it's the patch author who follows up on its consequences. > So why bother... Why spend time on worthless issues? Worthless? Qt5 depends on it. Samuel
Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)
On Mon, 2021-04-26 at 23:43 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Hello Svante, > > For information, your patch got dropped because of #975658 Yes I know since a long time. And you did not care or anybody else either. So why bother... Why spend time on worthless issues?
Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)
Hello Svante, For information, your patch got dropped because of #975658 Samuel
Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)
Hello, Svante Signell, le lun. 14 sept. 2020 17:44:24 +0200, a ecrit: > +#elif defined(__GNU__) > +#include > +#include > +#define DRM_IOCTL_NR(n) ((n) & 0xff) Rather use _IOC_COMMAND, that'll fix it into taking 7 bits only, not 8. Samuel
Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)
On Wed, 2020-09-16 at 17:14 +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote: > On 16.9.2020 10.53, Svante Signell wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 23:49 +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote: > > > On 15.9.2020 19.50, Svante Signell wrote: > > > > Both patches (somewhat modified) submitted upstream to the old > > > > issues: > > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/23 > > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/24 > > > > > > thanks, but I'm afraid they don't get noticed unless they're sent as > > > merge-requests.. > > > > I don't know how to create a merge request. Maybe you can do that? > > Alternately, what hinders you from applying the patches in Debian until > > upstream responds? > > It's gitlab, so merge-requests are done just like on salsa. Sorry I don't have a salsa account, and never used gitlab on salsa. What about applying the patches to librdm-2.4.102-2 until merge requests have been created, either by you or me (after researching how to do a merge request). Thanks!
Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)
On 16.9.2020 10.53, Svante Signell wrote: > On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 23:49 +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote: >> On 15.9.2020 19.50, Svante Signell wrote: >>> >>> Both patches (somewhat modified) submitted upstream to the old >>> issues: >>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/23 >>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/24 >> >> thanks, but I'm afraid they don't get noticed unless they're sent as >> merge-requests.. > > I don't know how to create a merge request. Maybe you can do that? > Alternately, what hinders you from applying the patches in Debian until > upstream responds? It's gitlab, so merge-requests are done just like on salsa. -- t
Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)
On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 23:49 +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote: > On 15.9.2020 19.50, Svante Signell wrote: > > > > Both patches (somewhat modified) submitted upstream to the old > > issues: > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/23 > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/24 > > thanks, but I'm afraid they don't get noticed unless they're sent as > merge-requests.. I don't know how to create a merge request. Maybe you can do that? Alternately, what hinders you from applying the patches in Debian until upstream responds? Thanks!
Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)
On 15.9.2020 19.50, Svante Signell wrote: > On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 20:52 +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote: >> On 14.9.2020 18.44, Svante Signell wrote: >>> found 909436 2.4.102-1 >>> thanks >>> >>> Hello again, >>> >>> libdrm still FTBFS on GNU/Hurd now due to bug #970304 and still >>> missing support for Hurd in drm.h and xf86drm.h. Attached is a >>> patch, hurd-port.diff, to fix this. The rest of that patch address >>> PATH_MAX issuesin xf86dri.c as PATH_MAX is not defined for >>> GNU/Hurd. >>> >>> Note: hurd-port.diff depends on that xf86drm.c.diff in #970304 is >>> applied before! >> >> these would need to go upstream.. > > Both patches (somewhat modified) submitted upstream to the old issues: > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/23 > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/24 thanks, but I'm afraid they don't get noticed unless they're sent as merge-requests.. -- t
Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)
On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 20:52 +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote: > On 14.9.2020 18.44, Svante Signell wrote: > > found 909436 2.4.102-1 > > thanks > > > > Hello again, > > > > libdrm still FTBFS on GNU/Hurd now due to bug #970304 and still > > missing support for Hurd in drm.h and xf86drm.h. Attached is a > > patch, hurd-port.diff, to fix this. The rest of that patch address > > PATH_MAX issuesin xf86dri.c as PATH_MAX is not defined for > > GNU/Hurd. > > > > Note: hurd-port.diff depends on that xf86drm.c.diff in #970304 is > > applied before! > > these would need to go upstream.. Both patches (somewhat modified) submitted upstream to the old issues: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/23 https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/24 Thanks!
Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)
On 14.9.2020 18.44, Svante Signell wrote: > found 909436 2.4.102-1 > thanks > > Hello again, > > libdrm still FTBFS on GNU/Hurd now due to bug #970304 and still missing > support for Hurd in drm.h and xf86drm.h. Attached is a patch, hurd- > port.diff, to fix this. The rest of that patch address PATH_MAX issues > in xf86dri.c as PATH_MAX is not defined for GNU/Hurd. > > Note: hurd-port.diff depends on that xf86drm.c.diff in #970304 is > applied before! these would need to go upstream.. -- t
Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)
found 909436 2.4.102-1
thanks
Hello again,
libdrm still FTBFS on GNU/Hurd now due to bug #970304 and still missing
support for Hurd in drm.h and xf86drm.h. Attached is a patch, hurd-
port.diff, to fix this. The rest of that patch address PATH_MAX issues
in xf86dri.c as PATH_MAX is not defined for GNU/Hurd.
Note: hurd-port.diff depends on that xf86drm.c.diff in #970304 is
applied before!
Additionally the patches debian_rules.diff and debian_control.diff adds
Hurd to the architecture list.
Thanks!
Index: libdrm-2.4.102/include/drm/drm.h
===
--- libdrm-2.4.102.orig/include/drm/drm.h
+++ libdrm-2.4.102/include/drm/drm.h
@@ -42,6 +42,22 @@
#include
typedef unsigned int drm_handle_t;
+#elif defined(__GNU__)
+
+#include
+#include
+#include
+typedef __int8_t __s8;
+typedef __uint8_t __u8;
+typedef __int16_t __s16;
+typedef __uint16_t __u16;
+typedef __int32_t __s32;
+typedef __uint32_t __u32;
+typedef __int64_t __s64;
+typedef __uint64_t __u64;
+typedef size_t __kernel_size_t;
+typedef unsigned int drm_handle_t;
+
#else /* One of the BSDs */
#include
Index: libdrm-2.4.102/xf86drm.h
===
--- libdrm-2.4.102.orig/xf86drm.h
+++ libdrm-2.4.102/xf86drm.h
@@ -56,6 +56,16 @@ extern "C" {
#define DRM_IOC_READWRITE _IOC_READ|_IOC_WRITE
#define DRM_IOC(dir, group, nr, size) _IOC(dir, group, nr, size)
+#elif defined(__GNU__)
+#include
+#include
+#define DRM_IOCTL_NR(n) ((n) & 0xff)
+#define DRM_IOC_VOIDIOC_VOID
+#define DRM_IOC_READIOC_OUT
+#define DRM_IOC_WRITE IOC_IN
+#define DRM_IOC_READWRITE IOC_INOUT
+#define DRM_IOC(dir, group, nr, size) _IOC(dir, group, nr, size)
+
#else /* One of the *BSDs */
#include
Index: libdrm-2.4.102/xf86drm.c
===
--- libdrm-2.4.102.orig/xf86drm.c
+++ libdrm-2.4.102/xf86drm.c
@@ -2980,7 +2980,8 @@ static char *drmGetMinorNameForFD(int fd
return strdup(name);
#else
struct stat sbuf;
-char buf[PATH_MAX + 1];
+char *buf = NULL;
+int len = 0;
const char *dev_name = drmGetDeviceName(type);
unsigned int maj, min;
int n;
@@ -2997,11 +2998,18 @@ static char *drmGetMinorNameForFD(int fd
if (!dev_name)
return NULL;
-n = snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), dev_name, DRM_DIR_NAME, min);
-if (n == -1 || n >= (int)sizeof(buf))
+len = snprintf(NULL, 0, dev_name, DRM_DIR_NAME, min);
+if (len < 0)
return NULL;
+len++;
+buf = malloc(len);
+n = snprintf(buf, len, dev_name, DRM_DIR_NAME, min);
+if (n == -1 || n >= len) {
+free(buf);
+return NULL;
+}
-return strdup(buf);
+return buf;
#endif
}
@@ -3947,17 +3955,30 @@ process_device(drmDevicePtr *device, con
bool fetch_deviceinfo, uint32_t flags)
{
struct stat sbuf;
-char node[PATH_MAX + 1];
+char *node = NULL;
int node_type, subsystem_type;
+int len = 0, n, ret = 0;
unsigned int maj, min;
node_type = drmGetNodeType(d_name);
if (node_type < 0)
return -1;
-snprintf(node, PATH_MAX, "%s/%s", DRM_DIR_NAME, d_name);
-if (stat(node, ))
+len = snprintf(NULL, 0, "%s/%s", DRM_DIR_NAME, d_name);
+if (len < 0)
+ return -1;
+len++;
+node = malloc(len);
+n = snprintf(node, len, "%s/%s", DRM_DIR_NAME, d_name);
+if (n == -1 || n >= len) {
+free(node);
return -1;
+}
+
+if (stat(node, )) {
+free(node);
+return -1;
+}
maj = major(sbuf.st_rdev);
min = minor(sbuf.st_rdev);
@@ -3972,18 +3993,27 @@ process_device(drmDevicePtr *device, con
switch (subsystem_type) {
case DRM_BUS_PCI:
case DRM_BUS_VIRTIO:
-return drmProcessPciDevice(device, node, node_type, maj, min,
+ret = drmProcessPciDevice(device, node, node_type, maj, min,
fetch_deviceinfo, flags);
+ free(node);
+ return ret;
case DRM_BUS_USB:
-return drmProcessUsbDevice(device, node, node_type, maj, min,
+ret = drmProcessUsbDevice(device, node, node_type, maj, min,
fetch_deviceinfo, flags);
+ free(node);
+ return ret;
case DRM_BUS_PLATFORM:
-return drmProcessPlatformDevice(device, node, node_type, maj, min,
+ret = drmProcessPlatformDevice(device, node, node_type, maj, min,
fetch_deviceinfo, flags);
+ free(node);
+ return ret;
case DRM_BUS_HOST1X:
-return drmProcessHost1xDevice(device, node, node_type, maj, min,
+ret = drmProcessHost1xDevice(device, node, node_type, maj, min,
fetch_deviceinfo, flags);
+ free(node);
+ return ret;
default:
+free(node);
return -1;
}
}
@@ -4306,10 +4336,10 @@ drm_public char
