On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:31:33PM -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > On March 11, 2021 20:26:06 "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:00:49 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > > > > > libdrm has supported the newer execbuffer2 ioctl and using it by default > > > when it exists since libdrm commit b50964027bef249a0cc3d511de05c2464e0a1e22 > > > which landed Mar 2, 2010. The i915 and i965 drivers in Mesa at the time > > > both used libdrm and so did the Intel X11 back-end. The SNA back-end > > > for X11 has always used execbuffer2. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 100 ------------------ > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ioctls.h | 2 - > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 +- > > > 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 103 deletions(-) > > > > Don't we want to clean up references to legacy execbuffer in > > include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h too? > > I thought about that but Daniel said we should leave them. Maybe a comment > is in order? These headers are copied unchanged to userspace for building. We don't use kernel-headers packages directly in any of our userspace (I hope at least), but still better safe than sorry and avoid compilation failures simply due to updated uapi headers that lost a few old things. Also we need at least the struct size because that's encoded in the ioctl number, and at that point might as well keep the entire thing. -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
