On 20 August 2016 at 16:08, Marek Olšák <maraeo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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. > > The problem is the diff is different, which has been said many times. > I see two things, neither of which implies any problems. - "syncing became difficult" which should _not_ be the case if you're using make headers_install - unease about usage of __uX types and misdirected finger pointing about compatibility with other OS. All I can think of is that you (?) are porting some changes from the kernel to libdrm or vice-versa. In the latter case please _don't_ do that. Work with your changes in upstream kernel, then pull them down to libdrm with `make headers_install`. Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
