On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 10:16:59AM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > Is it ok to build userspace to rely on these trace events during normal > operations, e.g. for continuous adjustment of timings/timers? Aside discussion on this: If we add this (I think userspace might want some information about the point of no return and why we missed it) then I think we should expose that with an improved drm_event and clear semantics. If we start to encourage compositors to use tracepoints to figure out why the kernel doesn't behave (TEST_ONLY failure, or missed flip target), and use that for behaviour, we've baked implementation details into the uapi. And then we're screwed. So if you have any need for timing information that you see solved with a tracepoint, pls bring this up so we can add proper uapi. And yes I know that if someone doesn't we still need to keep that tracepoint working, but with all things uapi the question isn't whether we'll screw up (we will), but how often. And less often is massively better :-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
