[PATCH] drm/nouveau/gem: tolerate a buffer specified multiple times

[Emil Velikov]

On 30 July 2015 at 16:02, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Bryan O'Donoghue
> <pure.logic at nexus-software.ie> wrote:
>> On 30/07/15 15:52, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/07/15 15:49, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 07/30/2015 10:12 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this happening with libdrm 2.4.60? If so, that's a known
>>>>> (user-side) issue and should be fixed by using any version but that
>>>>> one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's the freedesktop bugzilla # for reference?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Peter Hurley
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe it's this one
>>>
>>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89842#c19
>>>
>>
>> Not really a world of choice on ubuntu to fix it though...
>>
>> deckard at aineko:~/Development/projectara$ apt-show-versions libdrm2
>> libdrm2:amd64/trusty-updates 2.4.60-2~ubuntu14.04.1 uptodate
>> libdrm2:i386/trusty-updates 2.4.60-2~ubuntu14.04.1 uptodate
>>
>> :(
>
> That's unfortunate. I know next to nothing about debian/ubuntu or how
> they do versions or how to even build packages for them. But they're
> big distros, presumably they have support teams of some sort, perhaps
> they can help you.
>
> Assuming that switching away does resolve the issue for you, perhaps
> you can also recommend that they avoid shipping that version, or
> include this nouveau fix in it:
>
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/commit/?id=812e8fe6ce46d733c30207ee26c788c61f546294
>
Fwiw debian has been tracking this as #789759, and they are shipping
2.4.62 which includes the fix.

> This whole libdrm thing is a bit of a cluster%@#$ unfortunately --
> 2.4.60 is broken for nouveau, building even the latest released
> xf86-video-intel against 2.4.61+ causes it to not start ("fixed" in
> xf86-video-intel git), and newer mesa requires libdrm 2.4.60+.
>
I'm wondering if xf86-video-intel cannot, use libdrm's "features"
rather than having a local copy of every drm change for the last 2
years. If bumping the requirement is not an option, then having a few
build/compile time checks should do just fine.

Either way I'm glad that it wasn't me how broke that one :-P

-Emil