[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] [v3] i965: Split out gen8 push constant state upload

[Ben Widawsky]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:03:54PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Ben Widawsky
> <benjamin.widawsky at intel.com> wrote:
> > While implementing the workaround in the previous patch I noticed things were
> > starting to get a bit messy. Since gen8 works differently enough from gen7, I
> > thought splitting it out with be good.
> >
> > While here, get rid of gen8 MOCS which does nothing and was in the wrong place
> > anyway.
> >
> > This patch is totally optional. I'd be willing to just always use buffer #2 on
> > gen8+. Pre-HSW this wasn't allowed, but it looks like it's okay for gen8 too.
> >
> > v2: Move inactive batch generation to the top of the function in order to make
> > the rest of the code easier to read.
> >
> > Jenkins results (still a bunch of spurious failures, I miss Mark):
> > http://otc-mesa-ci.jf.intel.com/job/bwidawsk/169/
> >
> > v3: v2 had a bug in that it both didn't emit the right number of dwords, and it
> > didn't do ADVANCE_BATCH(). I'm moderately worried that there were no failures as
> > a result.
> > http://otc-mesa-ci.jf.intel.com/job/bwidawsk/170/
> 
> I don't think putting Intel-internal links in the commit message is a good idea.
> 
> Ken's made similar comments to me.
> 
> Also, so much off the wall commentary...

Maybe my definition of "off the wall" is different than yours. The only thing
off the wall to me, was the bit about missing Mark. It was *some* off the wall
commentary.

That aside though, I think the internal links is a good point and thing to
discuss... I've had a couple of cases already where I, or Neil benefited from
the Jenkins links being there to try to figure out some later regression. I can
sympathize with not having internal links in the history since it isn't
accessible to anyone. Earlier, I would have fought somewhat strongly for the
links, except that when Mark moved servers he didn't preserve the old links, so
that made me feel like it's a lot more transient than I initially felt.

However, I think it's really valuable for us to have them in the patches,
especially for review by some of the internal folks - like isn't it great to see
for yourself that I ran it? I suppose I can discard the URLs before pushing. The
cases I mentioned above would have benefited just as well having the links on
the list and not in the commit history (albeit a bit harder to find). Any
opposition to that?

*I do certainly thing posting JIRA tasks is irrelevant and wrong unless the
entire contents of the JIRA entry are also pasted. Why I feel Jenkins results
are different is we at least know approximately what is contained at that link.