<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Emil,</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24.07.18 19:23, Emil Velikov wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvgo52y9RXJPWZLkfmz613pN8kqOHTtRGMFzqGfKtxTrR=XnA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">Hi Danylo,
Having a closer look inspired by Eric's comments
On 24 July 2018 at 15:37, Danylo Piliaiev <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:danylo.piliaiev@gmail.com"><danylo.piliaiev@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Check for DRM_EVENT_CONTEXT_VERSION >= 4 to use sequence_handler.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">As you bump the libdrm version:
- drop the existing DRM_EVENT_CONTEXT_VERSION guard
- swap the DRM_EVENT_CONTEXT_VERSION macro with the actual version implemented
</pre>
</blockquote>
Makes sense, will be done.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvgo52y9RXJPWZLkfmz613pN8kqOHTtRGMFzqGfKtxTrR=XnA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Bugzilla: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107170">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107170</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106972">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106972</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107176">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107176</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Separate bugs it seems - hence separate patches?
</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvgo52y9RXJPWZLkfmz613pN8kqOHTtRGMFzqGfKtxTrR=XnA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
+LIBDRM_CRT_SEQUENCE_REQUIRED=2.4.89
+
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
There is no need for yet another version - just bump LIBDRM_REQUIRED.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Bumping LIBDRM_REQUIRED would mean that older platforms won't be supported.
I don't know how the decisions about support of older platforms are made but
from my point of view bumping required libdrm version due to one vulkan
extension
may be overkill.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">If we consider this as the only merit, then the number of
checks/version would practically explore.
Simply take each user libGL, libEGL, gbm, other multiply that with the
number of features we use.
Looking at Eero's bug (last one in the list) - he's using Ubuntu 16.04
which has 2.4.91 in xenial-updates
</pre>
</blockquote>
I didn't notice that libdrm is easy to update thus my argument
fails.<br>
Managing dependencies is hard...<br>
<span id="result_box" class="short_text" lang="en"><span class=""></span></span>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvgo52y9RXJPWZLkfmz613pN8kqOHTtRGMFzqGfKtxTrR=XnA@mail.gmail.com">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Why do we need the new define? From a quick look we should be above to
reuse VK_USE_PLATFORM_DISPLAY_KHR, we simply need the ifdef guards.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
If we will not bump global libdrm version requirement new define is
necessary because
rest of the code guarded by VK_USE_PLATFORM_DISPLAY_KHR works fine with
older libdrm versions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">And by addressing that, this can go - one diverging codepath less ;-)
</pre>
</blockquote>
For good.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvgo52y9RXJPWZLkfmz613pN8kqOHTtRGMFzqGfKtxTrR=XnA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">
HTH
Emil
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>