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. Before you ask - yes current libdrm users are not doing the right thing and should be updated one of these days. -Emil P.S. Having some deja-vu here... I thought I mentioned this a while back. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |