[PATCH] Revert "drm/xe/devcoredump: Add ASCII85 dump helper function"

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 04:28:58PM +0000, Jose Souza wrote:
>On Fri, 2024-12-13 at 09:50 -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 03:24:59PM +0000, Jose Souza wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2024-12-13 at 07:10 -0800, José Roberto de Souza wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 2024-12-13 at 08:38 -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 09:12:52AM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> > > > > We do not break userspace.
>> > >
>> > > There is other patch that also breaks Mesa parser:
>> > >
>> > > drm/xe/devcoredump: Improve section headings and add tile info
>> > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > This reverts commit ec1455ce7e35a31289d2dbc1070b980538698921.
>> > > >
>> > > > But we have users calling this function.... the revert is not so simple.
>> > > > I think we need to revert the functionality rather than reverting all
>> > > > the patches, otherwise it will cause a lot of headaches.
>> > > >
>> > > > I propose we go with:
>> > > >
>> > > > a) drop the \n that broke mesa and merge that with cc stable.
>> > > >
>> > > > b) move back the entry to the previous section that broke mesa and cc
>> > > >     stable.
>> > > >
>> > > >     José, would it be ok to merge a patch in mesa and port that
>> > > >     to mesa stable that simply looks at 2 possible sections? Or even
>> > > >     drop the section checks... ?
>> >
>> > But if Xe KMD is reverting the patch that changed the hwctx section why would Mesa need to also parse the new(future to be reverted) section?
>>
>> first is to undo the damage, with 0 changes in mesa. We do that first and
>> *then* we agree on what's possible to do to accomodate the 2 parsers we
>> have.
>>
>> If we can get something in mesa to work that is backward compatible (i.e. the
>> changed parser is able to parse both before and after the kernel change),
>> then it could be considered to a mesa stable and the kernel side
>> changed.
>
>Okay, reasonable plan. But the ascii85 encoder with \n will not be brought back right?

maybe let's agree on how to possibly bring it back? I suggested using a
space as continuation line char. This way you can just check the last char
returned by getline() you are calling and see if you can go ahead and
proceed or if you still need to get more data. Neither space nor newline
are part of the ascii85 character set, so it's safe and you can handle
continuation in one place in your loop.

if you are just ignoring any ascii85, then I believe it's even simpler:
you check sections and keys with a space since both keys and section
titles contain space, which is not part of the ascii85 char set.

Lucas De Marchi