Am 21.06.19 um 13:58 schrieb Emil Velikov: > On 2019/06/21, Koenig, Christian wrote: >> Am 21.06.19 um 12:53 schrieb Emil Velikov: >>> On 2019/06/21, Koenig, Christian wrote: >>>> [SNIP] >>>> Well partially. That RADV broke is unfortunate, but we have done so many >>>> customized userspace stuff both based on Mesa/DDX as well as closed >>>> source components that it is just highly likely that we would break >>>> something else as well. >>>> >>> As an engineer I like to work with tangibles. The highly likely part is >>> probable, but as mentioned multiple times the series allows for a _dead_ >>> trivial way to address any such problems. >> Well to clarify my concern is that this won't be so trivial. >> >> You implemented on workaround for one specific case and it is perfectly >> possible that for other cases we would have to completely revert the >> removal of DRM_AUTH. >> > I would encourage you to take a closer look at my patch and point out > how parcicular cases cannot be handled. Well the last time I looked it only blocked the first call to the IOCTL. If that is no longer the case then what is the actual difference to DRM_AUTH+DRM_ALLOW_RENDER? >>>>> In particular, that user-space will "remove" render nodes. >>>> Yes, that is my main concern here. You basically make render nodes >>>> superfluously. That gives userspace all legitimization to also remove >>>> support for them. That is not stupid or evil or whatever, userspace >>>> would just follow the kernel design. >>>> >>> Do you have an example of userspace doing such an extremely silly thing? >>> It does seem like suspect you're a couple of steps beyond overcautious, >>> perhaps rightfully so. Maybe you've seen some closed-source user-space >>> going crazy? Or any other projects? >> The key point is that I don't think this is silly or strange or crazy at >> all. See the kernel defines the interface userspace can and should use. >> >> When the kernel defines that everything will work with the primary node >> it is perfectly valid for userspace to drop support for the render node. >> >> I mean why should they keep this? Just because we tell them not to do this? >> > From your experiense, do user-space developers care about doing (or > generally do) the right thing? No, not at all. Except for Marek and Michel they just take what works and even Marek is often short-cutting on this. > In either case, as pointed already the cat is out of the bag - has been > for years, and if developers did behave as you describe them they would > have "removed" render nodes already. Currently render nodes are mandatory because they are needed for headless operation. E.g. we have a whole bunch of customers which do transcoding with that on GPUs which don't even have a CRTC or even X running. Regards, Christian. _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
