On 22/03/17 07:13 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: > On Mar 22, 2017 2:44 AM, "Michel Dänzer" <michel at daenzer.net > <mailto:michel at daenzer.net>> wrote: >> On 22/03/17 06:46 AM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Nicolai Hähnle >>> <nhaehnle at gmail.com <mailto:nhaehnle at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> In the past, I was told off for patches that update this file >>>> without following the procedure described in >>>> include/drm/README. Tbh, that procedure causes some >>>> annoyances. >>>> >>>> Anyway, it's definitely useful to have the patch out on the >>>> mailing list in any case. >>> >>> Yeah, I know the correct process and I plan to ignore it this >>> time if I don't get too much backlash, because the alternative >>> (#ifdef/#define/#endif) is probably even worse. >> >> FWIW, only AMDGPU_TILING_SET/GET need #undef, >> AMDGPU_TILING_SWIZZLE_MODE_SHIFT/MASK and AMDGPU_FAMILY_AI can just >> be #defined directly, that way the preprocessor will warn if the >> definitions in libdrm and Mesa end up being inconsistent for some >> reason. >> >> >> The alternative is rushing out a libdrm release and making Mesa >> require that, right? That doesn't seem obviously better than a >> handful of temporary redundant defines in Mesa, hardly >> justification for bypassing the normal process. > > I need a libdrm release because of the 3rd patch. I can't allow Mesa > to run without that. Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
