Re: Cannot submit merge request for xf86-video-intel
On Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:00 PM Adam Jackson wrote: > On Sat, 2019-05-11 at 21:17 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote: > > Given that the xf86-video-intel repo hasn't been been set up for PRs > > it seems (as opposed to lets say the xserver). > > I see in https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel > > the following people having made the most recent changes: > > > > Ville Syrjälä: ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com (found via a commit > > message with sign-off tag) > > Eric Anholt: e...@anholt.net > > Adam Jackson: a...@nwnk.net > > I don't have an active development interest in the intel driver, I just > ship it. My most recent patch was just because I couldn't get it to > build on 32-bit in Fedora, and I wasn't the one that merged it. In > general I try not to force-push patches to drivers that have active > maintenance. Which intel does have, despite the lack of releases; > people pretty much just use git snapshots and that seems to be > sufficient. > > The intel driver hasn't migrated to gitlab yet, Intel have internal > processes that revolve around bugzilla and the mailing list still > AFAIK. intel-gfx@ was the right place to send the patch. > > - ajax > Thanks for taking the time to explain that. I'll look into submitting the patch on bugzilla.freedesktop.org. --Adam > ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: Cannot submit merge request for xf86-video-intel
On Sat, 2019-05-11 at 21:17 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote: > Given that the xf86-video-intel repo hasn't been been set up for PRs > it seems (as opposed to lets say the xserver). > I see in https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel > the following people having made the most recent changes: > > Ville Syrjälä: ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com (found via a commit > message with sign-off tag) > Eric Anholt: e...@anholt.net > Adam Jackson: a...@nwnk.net I don't have an active development interest in the intel driver, I just ship it. My most recent patch was just because I couldn't get it to build on 32-bit in Fedora, and I wasn't the one that merged it. In general I try not to force-push patches to drivers that have active maintenance. Which intel does have, despite the lack of releases; people pretty much just use git snapshots and that seems to be sufficient. The intel driver hasn't migrated to gitlab yet, Intel have internal processes that revolve around bugzilla and the mailing list still AFAIK. intel-gfx@ was the right place to send the patch. - ajax ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: Cannot submit merge request for xf86-video-intel
Given that the xf86-video-intel repo hasn't been been set up for PRs it seems (as opposed to lets say the xserver). I see in https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel the following people having made the most recent changes: Ville Syrjälä: ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com (found via a commit message with sign-off tag) Eric Anholt: e...@anholt.net Adam Jackson: a...@nwnk.net Throw them a mail personally explaining them your question. On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 11:46 AM Adam Richter wrote: > > Hi, everyone on xorg-devel. > > I am wondering what the proper procedure is for submitting a patch or > merge request for xf86-video-intel. I had trouble using gitlab to do it, > so I sent the following email to intel-gfx and got no response, which > is unsurprising to me, given that I think that that list is essentially > for Linux DRM patches. > > The patch I am trying to submit, attached to this email, is the other > "assert(a && b) --> asert(a); assert(b)" patch that I mentioned (the > first one being for xserver). This one for xf86-video-intel, which I > believe is deprecated for Linux, but I imagine might still be used > in some circumstances. > > Anyhow, my original email to intel-gfx, appended here, covers > this in slightly more detail. Any advice on how I should proceed > is welcome. Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this. > > Adam > > -- Forwarded message ----- > From: Adam Richter > Date: Mon, May 6, 2019 at 12:27 PM > Subject: Cannot submit merge request for xf86-video-intel > To: > > > Hi, everyone. > > I am having trouble submitting a merge request on > gitlab.freedesktop.org for xf86-video-intel, even though doing so for > xserver works fine. The README for xf86-video-intel states that its > mailing list is intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org, so I am asking here, > even though most of the discussion on this list appears to be Linux > DRM patches. > > On gitlab.freedesktop.org, I forked a personal copy of > xf86-video-intel and pushed a change to it, but when I try to create a > new pull request, the web page only offers me the options of > submitting the merge request to one of two other users' tree. > > If I explicitly type "xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel" into the pull down > menu for "Target branch" (because the menu does have a box for > entering the text directly), the target repository name is updated, > but when I click on "Compare branches and continue", I get a screen > that states "You must select different branches," and has the target > and source both set to my repository and branch. > > My understanding is that, on Linux these days, the X server now has > xf86-video-modesetting merged in and normally uses that instead of > xf86-video-intel, but xf86-video-intel is not marked as "archived" on > gitlab.freedesktop.org, so I am guessing that changes to it are still > potentially useful on some other operating systems or in some other > unusual cases. > > In case anyone is curious about what the patch is, it is just > essentially mechanical conversions of "assert(a && b)" to "assert(a)" > and "assert(b)", hopefully for more efficient diagnosis of assertion > failure reports, which I have attached to this message for reference. > I submitting a similar merge request for the core X server a few days > ago, and it apparently got a positive feedback, and I expect it to be > merged shortly. > > Anyhow, any advice on how I should proceed, including simply > redirecting me to a more appropriate mailing list, would be > appreciated. Thanks for reading this far, and thanks in advance for > any guidance on this. > > Adam > ___ > xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel -- Far away from the primal instinct, the song seems to fade away, the river get wider between your thoughts and the things we do and say. ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Fwd: Cannot submit merge request for xf86-video-intel
Hi, everyone on xorg-devel. I am wondering what the proper procedure is for submitting a patch or merge request for xf86-video-intel. I had trouble using gitlab to do it, so I sent the following email to intel-gfx and got no response, which is unsurprising to me, given that I think that that list is essentially for Linux DRM patches. The patch I am trying to submit, attached to this email, is the other "assert(a && b) --> asert(a); assert(b)" patch that I mentioned (the first one being for xserver). This one for xf86-video-intel, which I believe is deprecated for Linux, but I imagine might still be used in some circumstances. Anyhow, my original email to intel-gfx, appended here, covers this in slightly more detail. Any advice on how I should proceed is welcome. Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this. Adam -- Forwarded message - From: Adam Richter Date: Mon, May 6, 2019 at 12:27 PM Subject: Cannot submit merge request for xf86-video-intel To: Hi, everyone. I am having trouble submitting a merge request on gitlab.freedesktop.org for xf86-video-intel, even though doing so for xserver works fine. The README for xf86-video-intel states that its mailing list is intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org, so I am asking here, even though most of the discussion on this list appears to be Linux DRM patches. On gitlab.freedesktop.org, I forked a personal copy of xf86-video-intel and pushed a change to it, but when I try to create a new pull request, the web page only offers me the options of submitting the merge request to one of two other users' tree. If I explicitly type "xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel" into the pull down menu for "Target branch" (because the menu does have a box for entering the text directly), the target repository name is updated, but when I click on "Compare branches and continue", I get a screen that states "You must select different branches," and has the target and source both set to my repository and branch. My understanding is that, on Linux these days, the X server now has xf86-video-modesetting merged in and normally uses that instead of xf86-video-intel, but xf86-video-intel is not marked as "archived" on gitlab.freedesktop.org, so I am guessing that changes to it are still potentially useful on some other operating systems or in some other unusual cases. In case anyone is curious about what the patch is, it is just essentially mechanical conversions of "assert(a && b)" to "assert(a)" and "assert(b)", hopefully for more efficient diagnosis of assertion failure reports, which I have attached to this message for reference. I submitting a similar merge request for the core X server a few days ago, and it apparently got a positive feedback, and I expect it to be merged shortly. Anyhow, any advice on how I should proceed, including simply redirecting me to a more appropriate mailing list, would be appreciated. Thanks for reading this far, and thanks in advance for any guidance on this. Adam commit 3816fe4ebb1050ffe8195174d3810573ebfc7dde Author: Adam Richter Date: Sat May 4 16:06:17 2019 -0700 Separate each "assert(a && b)" statement into "assert(a)" and "assert(b)". This should provide more precise diagnostics when an assertion failure is detected, which can sometimes be rare and difficult to generate. diff --git a/src/intel_device.c b/src/intel_device.c index 21955073..ca028e2c 100644 --- a/src/intel_device.c +++ b/src/intel_device.c @@ -669,7 +669,8 @@ int __intel_peek_fd(ScrnInfoPtr scrn) struct intel_device *dev; dev = intel_device(scrn); - assert(dev && dev->fd != -1); + assert(dev); + assert(dev->fd != -1); return dev->fd; } @@ -678,7 +679,8 @@ int intel_has_render_node(struct intel_device *dev) { struct stat st; - assert(dev && dev->fd != -1); + assert(dev); + assert(dev->fd != -1); return is_render_node(dev->fd, &st); } @@ -730,13 +732,15 @@ struct intel_device *intel_get_device(ScrnInfoPtr scrn, int *fd) const char *intel_get_master_name(struct intel_device *dev) { - assert(dev && dev->master_node); + assert(dev); + assert(dev->master_node); return dev->master_node; } const char *intel_get_client_name(struct intel_device *dev) { - assert(dev && dev->render_node); + assert(dev); + assert(dev->render_node); return dev->render_node; } @@ -755,7 +759,8 @@ int intel_get_client_fd(struct intel_device *dev) { int fd = -1; - assert(dev && dev->fd != -1); + assert(dev); + assert(dev->fd != -1); assert(dev->render_node); #ifdef O_CLOEXEC @@ -778,7 +783,8 @@ int intel_get_client_fd(struct intel_device *dev) int intel_get_device_id(struct intel_device *dev) { - assert(dev && dev->fd != -1); + assert(dev); + assert(dev->fd != -1);