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

[Ilia Mirkin]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Jonathan Gray <jsg at jsg.id.au> wrote:
> 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.

Bah, I even checked! And I didn't see it in there. But looking again
now, there it is, in the middle of 30 other options. Thanks for the
info, will file it away somewhere, hopefully for recall later :)