[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] nouveau: don't assume libdrm include prefix

[Jonathan Gray]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 08:42:59AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Jonathan Gray <jsg at jsg.id.au> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 08:09:41AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Jonathan Gray <jsg at jsg.id.au> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 07:29:32AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jonathan Gray <jsg at jsg.id.au> wrote:
> >> >> > drm headers may be installed in a different directory
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm curious -- how can this happen? Looking at Makefile.am from
> >> >> drm:nouveau/Makefile.am:
> >> >>
> >> >> libdrm_nouveauincludedir = ${includedir}/libdrm
> >> >> libdrm_nouveauinclude_HEADERS = nouveau.h
> >> >
> >> > libdrm is built with bsd makefiles in the OpenBSD xenocara/X11 tree.
> >> > http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/xenocara/lib/libdrm/
> >> >
> >> > The *_drm.h headers are shared between userland and the kernel.
> >> >
> >> > ie what Linux calls the 'uapi' headers can be found in
> >> > /usr/include/dev/pci/drm/
> >> > and the other libdrm headers are currently installed to
> >> > /usr/X11R6/include/
> >> >
> >> > The libdrm*.pc pkg-config files reflect this.
> >>
> >> Fair enough. I don't see nouveau in that repo, but I presume you're
> >> working on it, hence this change? (It should be entirely unrelated to
> >> the nouveau_drm.h thing from
> >> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76376 right?)
> >
> > I'm looking into adding the userland side to reduce
> > the number of diffs I'm keeping track of for Mesa.
> > The kernel side I don't have any plans for at the moment.
> >
> > And yes this is only needed if the driver is being built
> > but it matches the include behaviour of the other Mesa drivers.
> >
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu>
> >>
> >> Let me know if you need me to push these changes out.
> >
> > Yes I do, thanks for looking at the diffs.
> 
> Pushed. Not sure how you generated the patches, but they seemed to be
> missing the a/ and b/ prefixes. The convention is for patches to be
> applied with patch -p1 (which git am enforces). I hand-edited them
> this time, not sure how you managed it if you were using git
> format-patch...

In my global git config I have

[diff]
        noprefix = true

because OpenBSD patches are sent to be applied with -p0.

I'll override this for Mesa, so future patches should look
as you'd expect.

It does seem that git-am/git-apply accept a -p argument though
so you should have been able to use 'git am -p0' instead of
hand editing.