[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 4/4] i965: Assert that relayout laid out something that won't need it again.

[Jordan Justen]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net> wrote:
> The ETC1 changes failed at this, so let's make sure it will be caught in
> testing next time.
> ---
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_tex_validate.c |    6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_tex_validate.c b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_tex_validate.c
> index 2f1b354..3f21601 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_tex_validate.c
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_tex_validate.c
> @@ -113,6 +113,12 @@ intel_finalize_mipmap_tree(struct intel_context *intel, GLuint unit)
>           if (intelObj->mt != intelImage->mt) {
>              intel_miptree_copy_teximage(intel, intelImage, intelObj->mt);
>           }
> +
> +         /* After we're done, we'd better agree that our layout is
> +          * appropriate, or we'll end up hitting this function again on the
> +          * next draw
> +          */
> +         assert(intel_miptree_match_image(intelObj->mt, &intelImage->base.Base));

Should we use _mesa_error here, or is it very unlikely another
scenario will lead here?

Series Reviewed-by: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen at intel.com>