[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] Revert "glx: Fix synthetic error generation in __glXSendError"

[Timothy Arceri]

On 7/5/19 6:27 pm, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 2019-05-07 5:55 a.m., Timothy Arceri wrote:
>> This reverts commit e91ee763c378d03883eb88cf0eadd8aa916f7878.
>>
>> This seems to have broken a number of wine games.
>>
>> Cc: Adam Jackson <ajax at redhat.com>
>> Cc: Ian Romanick <ian.d.romanick at intel.com>
>> Cc: Hal Gentz <zegentzy at protonmail.com>
>> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110632
>> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110590
>> ---
>>   src/glx/glx_error.c | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/glx/glx_error.c b/src/glx/glx_error.c
>> index 712ecf8213d..653cbeb2d2a 100644
>> --- a/src/glx/glx_error.c
>> +++ b/src/glx/glx_error.c
>> @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ __glXSendError(Display * dpy, int_fast8_t errorCode, uint_fast32_t resourceID,
>>         error.errorCode = glx_dpy->codes->first_error + errorCode;
>>      }
>>   
>> -   error.sequenceNumber = dpy->last_request_read;
>> +   error.sequenceNumber = dpy->request;
>>      error.resourceID = resourceID;
>>      error.minorCode = minorCode;
>>      error.majorCode = glx_dpy->majorOpcode;
>> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ __glXSendErrorForXcb(Display * dpy, const xcb_generic_error_t *err)
>>   
>>      error.type = X_Error;
>>      error.errorCode = err->error_code;
>> -   error.sequenceNumber = dpy->last_request_read;
>> +   error.sequenceNumber = err->sequence;
>>      error.resourceID = err->resource_id;
>>      error.minorCode = err->minor_code;
>>      error.majorCode = err->major_code;
>>
> 
> As-is, this will re-introduce
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99781 . That one was about
> __glXSendErrorForXcb, while the regressions are about __glXSendError, so
> maybe only revert the __glXSendError hunk for now?
> 
> 

I don't know enough about this code to take responsibility for such 
changes. I was just trying to revert to the status quo until this could 
be investigated again.

My suggestion is we roll back the recent change. Then someone needs to 
create piglit test for both scenarios before trying to move forward again.

If you want to try something different then go for it :)