[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 1/2] RFC i965: Bypass a couple of libraries for syscall on x84_64

[Eric Engestrom]

On 20 June 2017 18:22:32 BST, Chad Versace <chadversary at chromium.org> wrote:
>On Tue 20 Jun 2017, Eric Engestrom wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 2017-06-20 09:56:25 -0700, Chad Versace wrote:
>> > On Tue 20 Jun 2017, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> > 
>> > > I'm not sure why avoiding drmIoctl is even a thing, there are
>plenty
>> > > of huge optimisation opportunities, this just seems like a feel
>good
>> > > pointless microptimisation.
>> > 
>> > There is very little usage of libdrm remaining in i965. If the last
>bit
>> > were dropped, then I believe Chromium OS would no longer have to
>> > maintain an Android-fork of libdrm for its Android container.
>> 
>> Why the fork? Are the changes incompatible with upstream libdrm?
>
>It's a little fork with only a handful of patches. Most changes get
>upstreamed. And I'm not the person adding patches to it; that's mostly
>krh, Sean Paul, Nicholas Boichat, and Tomasz Figa.
>
>https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/libdrm
>
>I should have been clearer. Maintaining the *code* of the libdrm fork
>is
>not the burden I complain about. It's only a handful os patches, after
>all.  The maintenance burden I want to remove is maintaining the libdrm
>*build* for Chromium OS's Android container.
>
>Each project that we must build for Android's vendor image adds
>a small maintenance burden to the large Android maintenance heap. The
>burden doesn't lie in the libdrm repo itself; it lies in the tools and
>scripts that support the vendor image's construction and its
>dependencies.
>
>I'm not claiming that Mesa or i965 should drop libdrm just because it
>makes Google's little Android project a little easier to maintain. But,
>since i965 is already so close to dropping libdrm, it would be
>a nice-to-have.

Oh right, I understand better now. Like I said, I think we should go ahead with the original patches, and I'll make the libdrm patches I mentioned tomorrow to have that other discussion on a separate thread.

I just had a look at the patches again to make sure, and with Emil's makefile change, they are:
Reviewed-by: Eric Engestrom <eric at engestrom.ch>
Cheers,
  Eric