[Spice-devel] [PATCH 0/2] stability for dual head

[Alon Levy]

On 06/16/2014 04:16 PM, David Mansfield wrote:
> 
> On 06/09/2014 09:29 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
>> On 06/09/2014 04:18 PM, David Mansfield wrote:
>>> On 06/09/2014 07:18 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
>>>> On 06/03/2014 04:14 PM, David Mansfield wrote:
>>>>> Bump. I'll make it easy.  This is a multiple choice response form.
>>>>> Anyone reading this can respond with one letter so save time and
>>>>> effort.
>>>>>
>>>>> a) "We're too busy with RHEL 7/paying clients, come back in a
>>>>> month/some
>>>>> timeframe"
>>>>> b) "There's an SEP field on these problems, everyone who understands
>>>>> that code has moved on"
>>>>> c) "Go away"
>>>>> d) "Oops, I've been meaning to get back to you but I keep
>>>>> forgetting and
>>>>> life is hectic..."
>>>>> e) "Didn't you hear? SPICE is dead."
>>>>> f) "Other." Please elaborate using the space provided below:
>>>> The first patch looks good (just adjusting the #if to disable the
>>>> print). I'll pick it up, thanks, you deserved a faster response.
>>>>
>>>> No idea what SEP is.
>>> Hi Alon,
>>>
>>> I followed Marc-André's advice and sent these out to DRI ond xorg
>>> mailing lists, respectively.  The qxl.ko patch was picked up by Dave
>>> Airlie and committed to drm-next branch.
>>>
>>> The second is still without a home.
>>>
>>> (BTW: An SEP is a "somebody else's problem" effect, see
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else%27s_Problem, popularized in
>>> Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide novel.  Very funny concept.)
>> Missed that.
>>
>>> Any possibility of help with issue #2, the xorg-devel list is silent on
>>> this  one and I don't know who the maintainer is specifically. Without
>>> this patch xorg-qxl is trivially crashable when using dual head at
>>> 1920x1200 resolution (or potentially lower resolution).
>>>
>> 96 relocs with 512x512 chunks - what do you do to crash it?
>>
>> Soren Sandmann is the maintainer, but I did a release once, I can commit
>> it once I'm done testing (need to allow large resolutions which by
>> default are limited to surface0_area_size).
> 
> Good morning (evening?) Alon,
> 
> Anything else you need from me on this? I've attached the patch from
> git-format-patch that should have all of the correct signed-off etc. and
> a proper commit description.
> 
> Just a friendly ping.
> 

Thanks. I pushed your patch (plus just a white space fix).

It is still not testable without changing the surface0 allocation
manually or enabling surface resizing. Have you taken a look perhaps at
the surface resize stuff? how did you test it so far?