[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 1/5] include/GL: add mesa_glinterop.h for OpenGL-OpenCL interop (v3)

[Emil Velikov]

On 9 April 2016 at 01:21, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16 March 2016 at 10:40, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "offset_after" isn't nasty. :) Yeah, I was inspired by other APIs I
>>> had seen. The sizes make even more sense when they are function
>>> parameters, because the caller can just do:
>>> (sizeof(in), &in, sizeof(out), &out)
>>>
>> A nice list of arguments:
>>  - If the majority of people like offset_after, the question "Why
>> barely any projects use it (from a quick search) ?" comes to mind.
>>  - I wasn't the only one advocating for versioned interfaces ;-)
>>  - They will just work in an identical way and the code will be less.
>>  - Regardless of how ugly/nasty/etc, mesa uses versioned interfaces
>> throughout. "Consistency is the key" a wise man have said once.
>>  - The interfaces using explicit size argument, that I'm aware of, are
>> not designed with extensibility in mind.
>
> Updated branch with your suggestions applied:
> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~mareko/mesa/log/?h=interop
>
Thank you very much.

Hopefully, some of the arguments made sense, as opposed to doing this
just to make me happy (read 'shut me up').

>From a quick look:
 - Food for thought: An feeling about "can we get away without
including glx.h and EGL.h in mesa_glinterop.h" kicks in. As-is
specifics from one winsys are leaked while building the other and
vice-versa. I'm wondering about incomplete/forward declaration of the
needed types, although that might be a bad idea ?
 - The struct_version checks seem off -> they are == 0, while they
should be < 1. The idea is for newer versions to be backward
compatible, correct ?

-Emil