On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> If I could guarantee that I'd only ever run on 4.13-or-later kernels >> (I think that's when the previous patches will land?), then this would >> indeed be mostly unnecessary. It would save me a bunch of addfb calls >> that would predictably fail, but they're cheap. > > I don't think we ever had caps for "things are working now, as they are > supposed to". i915 wasn't properly synchronizing on foreign fences for a > long time, yet we didn't gain a cap for "cross device sync works now". > > If your distro use-case relies on those things working it's probably > best to just backport the relevant fixes. The even better solution for this is to push the backports through upstream -stable kernels. This stuff here is simple enough that we can do it. Same could have been done for the fairly minimal fencing fixes for i915 (at least some of them, the ones in the page-flip). Otherwise we'll end up with tons IM_NOT_BUGGY and IM_SLIGHTLY_LESS_BUGGY and IM_NOT_BUGGY_EXCEPT_THIS_BOTCHED_BACKPORT flags where no one at all knows what they mean, usage between different drivers and different userspace is entirely inconsistent and they just all add to the confusion. They're just bugs, lets treat them like that. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
