[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/2] amd/addrlib: update Mesa's copy of addrlib

[Dave Airlie]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 14:42, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 7:15 PM Bas Nieuwenhuizen <bas at basnieuwenhuizen.nl> wrote:
>>
>> So I tried to test this with radv and got a bunch of crashes in CTS,
>> mostly around 3d image support:
>>
>> #3  0x00007ffff71a9396 in __assert_fail () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
>> #4  0x00007ffff69da3b4 in
>> Addr::V2::Gfx9Lib::HwlGetPreferredSurfaceSetting (this=0x555557661b30,
>> pIn=0x7fffffffd5f0, pOut=0x7fffffffd5d0)
>>     at ../mesa/src/amd/addrlib/src/gfx9/gfx9addrlib.cpp:3684
>> #5  0x00007ffff69cf331 in
>> Addr::V2::Lib::Addr2GetPreferredSurfaceSetting (this=0x555557661b30,
>> pIn=0x7fffffffd5f0, pOut=0x7fffffffd5d0)
>>     at ../mesa/src/amd/addrlib/src/core/addrlib2.cpp:1742
>> #6  0x00007ffff69c4e87 in Addr2GetPreferredSurfaceSetting
>> (hLib=0x555557661b30, pIn=0x7fffffffd5f0, pOut=0x7fffffffd5d0)
>>     at ../mesa/src/amd/addrlib/src/addrinterface.cpp:1697
>> #7  0x00007ffff69bf8d4 in gfx9_get_preferred_swizzle_mode
>> (addrlib=0x555557661b30, in=0x7fffffffd690, is_fmask=false,
>> flags=33555202, swizzle_mode=0x7fffffffd698)
>>
>> It seems to be caused by the explicit swizzle mode override that we do with
>>
>> commit b64b7125586ce48232658cd860f549a6139b6ddd
>> Author: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak at amd.com>
>> Date:   Mon Apr 2 12:54:52 2018 -0400
>>
>>     ac/surface/gfx9: request desired micro tile mode explicitly
>>
>>     Tested-by: Dieter Nützel <Dieter at nuetzel-hh.de>
>>
>>
>> Since we never got a reason to have it (the commit message above is
>> not descriptive and the patch not reviewed) and this is the second
>> time already that this breaks stuff (The other was allowing S tiling
>> for raven displayable surfaces, per 7eff8d7d3564), maybe revert it and
>> let addrlib make the decision?
>
>
> Yes, my commits are mostly unreviewed. It's the norm now. Willing reviewers don't exist anymore. I don't really mind that my patches are not reviewed, but whoever complains that I push unreviewed commits should ask himself why he didn't review them in their review period. That applies to everybody. Either review regularly or accept that unreviewed commits are normal.
>
> Secondly, past commits can't break future commits, so don't say it breaks stuff again. It's illogical.
>
> There may be multiple reasons why the commit exists. As long as reverting it doesn't break piglit / radeonsi, I'm OK with the reverting.

Marek,

There is no way anybody could review this commit, the commit log
contains 0 information on why or what the commit is doing or what it
fixes, there is nothing to say what the reviewer is looking out for.

So maybe in future if you are pushing unreviewed commits in you could
add the multiple reasons to the commit log? clearly you wrote the
patch for a reason, adding the reason to the changelog shouldn't be a
major burden.

Dave.