[Mesa-dev] [Mesa-stable] [PATCH] nvc0: do not clear surfaces bins in the validate function

[Emil Velikov]

On 5 June 2016 at 23:00, Samuel Pitoiset <samuel.pitoiset at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 06/05/2016 11:50 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>
>> On 5 June 2016 at 22:36, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5 June 2016 at 22:17, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5 June 2016 at 22:13, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5 June 2016 at 17:56, Samuel Pitoiset <samuel.pitoiset at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We should not call nouveau_bufctx_reset() inside a validate
>>>>>>>> function.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This seems to contradict the changes introduced in nvc0_compute.c.
>>>>>>> Worth explaining a bit better the dos and don'ts ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As this is already in master, can you please provide a more
>>>>>> elaborate/correct summary for -stable ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's fine as is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do: reset bufctx when setting dirty bit
>>>>> Don't: reset bufctx in validate logic, since it's "too late" by then.
>>>>> (Not strictly wrong, but just should do it earlier.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So nvc0_compute_*validate*_surfaces is not validate logic ? Err...
>>>> what a confusing name it has ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> It validates compute. And it invalidates (and clears) the 3d bin.
>>>
>> So one can reset_bufctx(3d) from the compute validate and vice-versa.
>> While doing reset_bufctx(foo) from foo validate is a bad idea ?
>> Shouldn't one just say so in the commit message ?
>
>
> Because the common practice is to clear foo bins at the same place where the
> dirty_3d |= foo is updated, this makes sense. :)
>
Yet the commit message does not say that, right ? It says "We should
not call nouveau_bufctx_reset() inside a validate function.", while
the patch does the complete opposite - it adds a call to
nouveau_bufctx_reset() inside a validate function.

All I'm asking is for the commit message to reflect the code change or
vice-versa. I hope I'm not being unreasonable ?

Thanks
Emil