Hello Emil, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 30 October 2015 at 11:16, Tobias Jakobi > <tjakobi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hello Hyungwon, >> >> first of all thanks for reviewing the series! >> >> >> >> Hyungwon Hwang wrote: >>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:54:55 +0200 >>> Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > >>>> + evhandler->evctx.base.version = DRM_EVENT_CONTEXT_VERSION; >>>> + evhandler->evctx.version = EXYNOS_EVENT_CONTEXT_VERSION; >>> >>> The versions must be set not using XXX_EVENT_CONTEXT_VERSION. After the >>> versions are bumped, the event will contains wrong version info. >> Hmm, I don't see how this is true. Both DRM_EVENT_CONTEXT_VERSION and >> EXYNOS_EVENT_CONTEXT_VERSION come from the public libdrm header. If the >> version in the public header is bumped, then it's also bumped here. So I >> don't see the issue. >> > The issue is that the public header defines the interface available, > while you set the version that you implement. Currently those match, > but if/when we expand the API (bumping the version in the header) and > rebuild your program we will crash. Hmm, I'm still not sure I understand this. Do you mean rebuilding the tests out-of-tree and then running them against a newer/older libdrm version? Because from my understanding the tests are always build together with libdrm anyway. Or am I misunderstanding here something? > Before you ask - yes current libdrm users are not doing the right > thing and should be updated one of these days. Maybe a dumb question, but what would be the right thing to do in may case. Define my own MY_XZY_EVENT_CONTEXT_VERSION and use these? With best wishes, Tobias > -Emil > P.S. Having some deja-vu here... I thought I mentioned this a while back. > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
