On 20 August 2016 at 12:47, Marek Olšák <maraeo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 20 August 2016 at 11:05, Marek Olšák <maraeo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 19 August 2016 at 15:26, Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Am 19.08.2016 um 15:50 schrieb Marek Olšák: >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak@xxxxxxx> >>>>>> >>>>>> This reverts commit 2ce9dde0d47f2f94ab25c73a30596a7328bcdf1f. >>>>>> >>>>>> See the comment in the code. Basically, don't do cleanups in this header. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak@xxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I completely agree with you that this was a bad move, but I fear that we >>>>> will run into opposition with that. >>>>> >>>> Please check the facts before introducing RATHER ANNOYING AND HARD TO >>>> READ COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. >>>> >>>> Story time: >>>> I was dreaming of a day were we can stop installing these headers, >>>> thus making deprecation a bit easier process. >>>> Yet after failing to convince Dave and Daniel on a number of occasions >>>> I've accepted that those headers _are_ here to stay. And yes they >>>> _are_ the UAPI, even though no applications are meant to use them but >>>> the libdrm 'version'. >>>> Thus any changes to the libdrm ones should be a mirror of the ones >>>> here and libdrm should _not_ differ. >>>> >>>> But let's ignore all that and imagine that those headers are _not_ >>>> UAPI. That gives us even greater reason to _not_ use the uintx_t types >>>> but the kernel __uX ones. The series that did these changes had a fair >>>> few references why we want that. >>>> >>>> Yes, I can imagine that the situation isn't ideal, and/or not that >>>> clear. Then again a check with git log should have straightened things >>>> out. >>>> If not _please_ help us improve this (documentation and/or others). >>>> >>>> >>>> And last but not least, please share with up what inspired this - >>>> (build/runtime) regression, attempted sync with libdrm, other ? >>> >>> Syncing with libdrm became difficult. >> Actually it should be easier now. Perhaps the radeon one was always a >> good citizen, but sadly that was not the case for the rest. >> >>> I'd like the diff between kernel >>> and libdrm to be as small as possible. >>> >> I believe we all agree on this one :-) >> >>> We must take into account that the uapi headers can potentially be >>> implemented by a different OS. >> Agreed. Have you looked at the 'compatibility layer' in drm.h ? >> >>> That's why they are in libdrm and >>> that's why nobody should make random changes to them in the kernel >>> tree. Do not think like a kernel developer isolated in Linux and just >>> consider the broader use case. If you do, you'll realize that it >>> simply doesn't make sense to use the __uX types here. >>> >> Ftr, like Rob (and maybe others) I believe that using __uX (in the >> kernel) is a bit odd, and opting for the stdint.h types should happen. >> But until/if that happens we have to live with the __uX ones. >> >> That said, I have poked various BSD people on a number of occasions, >> (hopefully) inspiring them to upstream their changes in a compatible >> way. Thus the whole "don't think like a kernel developer" doesn't >> really apply here :-\ >> >> I'm simply one of the few fools^wpeople trying to make things OK for >> most (since one can never please everyone, all the time). >> >> IIRC the FreeBSD/DragonFly people had some issues with their >> compatibility layer since the kernel and userspace drm.h were >> divergent "by design" [1]. To make it even 'better' there's even two >> difference versions of drm.h in their kernel itself [2]. >> >> What I am for is a discussion how to resolve things. Although expect >> resistance if you're thinking about applying tape, in order to fix >> somethings that's 'broken' elsewhere. >> >> If you or any !Linux folks are around on XDC we should really sit down >> and untangle some/all of these issues. > > It's not 100% certain but it looks like we won't be there. > > We need the uapi headers to be the same as libdrm ones to make syncing > easier. There is not much else to discuss here really. We (AMD) are > also the ones who have to work with these headers the most, not you, not Mikko. > Agreed and agreed. > While I understand some people want to discuss this further, these > patches must land first in order bring back the compatibility with > libdrm. This is where the misunderstanding lies - there _must_ _not_ be compatible with the libdrm ones, but the other way around. Check the output of $ git log -p -- include/drm in libdrm. Pretty please ? > After that, we can discuss the possible solutions and > everybody interested in a better solution *that will take libdrm into > account* can join. For now, I have to expect that those discussions > might also lead nowhere and > I don't wanna be stuck with bad uapi > headers in the kernel forever. > As mentioned before - please clearly state what do you perceive as bad and/or why. Daniel, myself and Rob (to a point) have explained that things are not perfect as-is but they are definitely not bad or wrong. Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
