Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm: Introduce drm_modeset_lock_ctx_retry()
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:00:35PM +0200, Fernando Ramos wrote: > On 21/10/13 03:06PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > And yes C is dangerous, but also C is verbose. I think one lesson from igt > > > is that too many magic block constructs are bad, it's just not how C > > > works. Definitely not in the kernel, where "oops I got it wrong because it > > > was too clever" is bad. > > > > > > > > Yes the macro we have is also not nice, but at least it's a screaming > > > > > macro since it's all uppercase, so options are all a bit sucky. Which > > > > > leads me to think we have a bit a https://xkcd.com/927/ situation > > > > > going > > > > > on. > > > > > > > > > > I think minimally we should have one way to do this. > > > > > > > > Well, there is no one way atm. All you can do is hand roll all the > > > > boilerplate (and likely get it slightly wrong) if you don't want > > > > lock_all. > > > > > > > > The current macros only help with lock_all, and IMO the hidden gotos > > > > are even uglier than a hidden for loop. Fernando already hit a case > > > > where he couldn't use the macros twice due to conflicting goto > > > > labels. With this for loop thing I think it would have just worked(tm). > > > > > > I'm totally ok with repainting the shed, I just don't want some 80s > > > multicolor flash show. > > > > You have a better idea in mind? > > Sorry, I completely forgot this discussion was going on and I just published > V4 > of my patch set here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20211013204846.90026-1-green...@u92.eu/ > > Please, feel free to let me know (ideally, as a reply to the corresponding > i915 > patch from that set) if you rather me not to modify i915 files for now. My request is that we only have one way of doing this drm_modeset lock retry business. So either this one here proposed by Ville, or the one Sean Paul merged. I honestly don't care which color we pick, as long as it's consistent across the board. Please all you, figure this out. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm: Introduce drm_modeset_lock_ctx_retry()
On 21/10/13 03:06PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > And yes C is dangerous, but also C is verbose. I think one lesson from igt > > is that too many magic block constructs are bad, it's just not how C > > works. Definitely not in the kernel, where "oops I got it wrong because it > > was too clever" is bad. > > > > > > Yes the macro we have is also not nice, but at least it's a screaming > > > > macro since it's all uppercase, so options are all a bit sucky. Which > > > > leads me to think we have a bit a https://xkcd.com/927/ situation going > > > > on. > > > > > > > > I think minimally we should have one way to do this. > > > > > > Well, there is no one way atm. All you can do is hand roll all the > > > boilerplate (and likely get it slightly wrong) if you don't want > > > lock_all. > > > > > > The current macros only help with lock_all, and IMO the hidden gotos > > > are even uglier than a hidden for loop. Fernando already hit a case > > > where he couldn't use the macros twice due to conflicting goto > > > labels. With this for loop thing I think it would have just worked(tm). > > > > I'm totally ok with repainting the shed, I just don't want some 80s > > multicolor flash show. > > You have a better idea in mind? Sorry, I completely forgot this discussion was going on and I just published V4 of my patch set here: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20211013204846.90026-1-green...@u92.eu/ Please, feel free to let me know (ideally, as a reply to the corresponding i915 patch from that set) if you rather me not to modify i915 files for now. Thanks.
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm: Introduce drm_modeset_lock_ctx_retry()
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 01:59:47PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:15:51PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:44:49PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 09:49:51PM +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > > > From: Ville Syrjälä
> > > >
> > > > Quite a few places are hand rolling the modeset lock backoff dance.
> > > > Let's suck that into a helper macro that is easier to use without
> > > > forgetting some steps.
> > > >
> > > > The main downside is probably that the implementation of
> > > > drm_with_modeset_lock_ctx() is a bit harder to read than a hand
> > > > rolled version on account of being split across three functions,
> > > > but the actual code using it ends up being much simpler.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Sean Paul
> > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c | 44 ++
> > > > include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h | 20 ++
> > > > 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> > > > index fcfe1a03c4a1..083df96632e8 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> > > > @@ -425,3 +425,47 @@ int drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx(struct drm_device
> > > > *dev,
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx);
> > > > +
> > > > +void _drm_modeset_lock_begin(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > > > +struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > > > +unsigned int flags, int *ret)
> > > > +{
> > > > + drm_modeset_acquire_init(ctx, flags);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (state)
> > > > + state->acquire_ctx = ctx;
> > > > +
> > > > + *ret = -EDEADLK;
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_drm_modeset_lock_begin);
> > > > +
> > > > +bool _drm_modeset_lock_loop(int *ret)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (*ret == -EDEADLK) {
> > > > + *ret = 0;
> > > > + return true;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_drm_modeset_lock_loop);
> > > > +
> > > > +void _drm_modeset_lock_end(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > > > + struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > > > + int *ret)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (*ret == -EDEADLK) {
> > > > + if (state)
> > > > + drm_atomic_state_clear(state);
> > > > +
> > > > + *ret = drm_modeset_backoff(ctx);
> > > > + if (*ret == 0) {
> > > > + *ret = -EDEADLK;
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + drm_modeset_drop_locks(ctx);
> > > > + drm_modeset_acquire_fini(ctx);
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_drm_modeset_lock_end);
> > > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> > > > b/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> > > > index aafd07388eb7..5eaad2533de5 100644
> > > > --- a/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> > > > +++ b/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> > > > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> > > >
> > > > #include
> > > >
> > > > +struct drm_atomic_state;
> > > > struct drm_modeset_lock;
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > @@ -203,4 +204,23 @@ modeset_lock_fail:
> > > > \
> > > > if (!drm_drv_uses_atomic_modeset(dev))
> > > > \
> > > > mutex_unlock(&dev->mode_config.mutex);
> > > >
> > > > +void _drm_modeset_lock_begin(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > > > +struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > > > +unsigned int flags,
> > > > +int *ret);
> > > > +bool _drm_modeset_lock_loop(int *ret);
> > > > +void _drm_modeset_lock_end(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > > > + struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > > > + int *ret);
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Note that one must always use "continue" rather than
> > > > + * "break" or "return" to handle errors within the
> > > > + * drm_modeset_lock_ctx_retry() block.
> > >
> > > I'm not sold on loop macros with these kind of restrictions, C just isn't
> > > a great language for these. That's why e.g. drm_connector_iter doesn't
> > > give you a macro, but only the begin/next/end function calls explicitly.
> >
> > We already use this pattern extensively in i915. Gem ww ctx has one,
> > power domains/pps/etc. use a similar things. It makes the code pretty nice,
> > with the slight caveat that an accidental 'break' can ruin your day. But
> > so can an accidental return with other constructs (and we even had that
> > happen a few times with the connector iterators), so not a dealbreaker
> > IMO.
> >
> >
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm: Introduce drm_modeset_lock_ctx_retry()
On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:15:51PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:44:49PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 09:49:51PM +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > > From: Ville Syrjälä
> > >
> > > Quite a few places are hand rolling the modeset lock backoff dance.
> > > Let's suck that into a helper macro that is easier to use without
> > > forgetting some steps.
> > >
> > > The main downside is probably that the implementation of
> > > drm_with_modeset_lock_ctx() is a bit harder to read than a hand
> > > rolled version on account of being split across three functions,
> > > but the actual code using it ends up being much simpler.
> > >
> > > Cc: Sean Paul
> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter
> > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c | 44 ++
> > > include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h | 20 ++
> > > 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> > > index fcfe1a03c4a1..083df96632e8 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> > > @@ -425,3 +425,47 @@ int drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx(struct drm_device *dev,
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx);
> > > +
> > > +void _drm_modeset_lock_begin(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > > + struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > > + unsigned int flags, int *ret)
> > > +{
> > > + drm_modeset_acquire_init(ctx, flags);
> > > +
> > > + if (state)
> > > + state->acquire_ctx = ctx;
> > > +
> > > + *ret = -EDEADLK;
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_drm_modeset_lock_begin);
> > > +
> > > +bool _drm_modeset_lock_loop(int *ret)
> > > +{
> > > + if (*ret == -EDEADLK) {
> > > + *ret = 0;
> > > + return true;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return false;
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_drm_modeset_lock_loop);
> > > +
> > > +void _drm_modeset_lock_end(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > > +struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > > +int *ret)
> > > +{
> > > + if (*ret == -EDEADLK) {
> > > + if (state)
> > > + drm_atomic_state_clear(state);
> > > +
> > > + *ret = drm_modeset_backoff(ctx);
> > > + if (*ret == 0) {
> > > + *ret = -EDEADLK;
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + drm_modeset_drop_locks(ctx);
> > > + drm_modeset_acquire_fini(ctx);
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_drm_modeset_lock_end);
> > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> > > b/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> > > index aafd07388eb7..5eaad2533de5 100644
> > > --- a/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> > > +++ b/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> > > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> > >
> > > #include
> > >
> > > +struct drm_atomic_state;
> > > struct drm_modeset_lock;
> > >
> > > /**
> > > @@ -203,4 +204,23 @@ modeset_lock_fail:
> > > \
> > > if (!drm_drv_uses_atomic_modeset(dev)) \
> > > mutex_unlock(&dev->mode_config.mutex);
> > >
> > > +void _drm_modeset_lock_begin(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > > + struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > > + unsigned int flags,
> > > + int *ret);
> > > +bool _drm_modeset_lock_loop(int *ret);
> > > +void _drm_modeset_lock_end(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > > +struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > > +int *ret);
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Note that one must always use "continue" rather than
> > > + * "break" or "return" to handle errors within the
> > > + * drm_modeset_lock_ctx_retry() block.
> >
> > I'm not sold on loop macros with these kind of restrictions, C just isn't
> > a great language for these. That's why e.g. drm_connector_iter doesn't
> > give you a macro, but only the begin/next/end function calls explicitly.
>
> We already use this pattern extensively in i915. Gem ww ctx has one,
> power domains/pps/etc. use a similar things. It makes the code pretty nice,
> with the slight caveat that an accidental 'break' can ruin your day. But
> so can an accidental return with other constructs (and we even had that
> happen a few times with the connector iterators), so not a dealbreaker
> IMO.
>
> So if we don't want this drm wide I guess I can propose this just for
> i915 since it fits in perfectly there.
Well I don't like them for i915 either.
And yes C is dangerous, but also C is verbose. I think one lesson from igt
is that too many magic block constructs are bad, it's just not how C
works. Definitely not in the kernel, where "oops I got it wrong because it
was too clever" is bad.
> > Yes the macro we have is also not nice, but at least it's a screaming
> > macro since it's all uppercase, so
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm: Introduce drm_modeset_lock_ctx_retry()
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:44:49PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 09:49:51PM +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä
> >
> > Quite a few places are hand rolling the modeset lock backoff dance.
> > Let's suck that into a helper macro that is easier to use without
> > forgetting some steps.
> >
> > The main downside is probably that the implementation of
> > drm_with_modeset_lock_ctx() is a bit harder to read than a hand
> > rolled version on account of being split across three functions,
> > but the actual code using it ends up being much simpler.
> >
> > Cc: Sean Paul
> > Cc: Daniel Vetter
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c | 44 ++
> > include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h | 20 ++
> > 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> > index fcfe1a03c4a1..083df96632e8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> > @@ -425,3 +425,47 @@ int drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx(struct drm_device *dev,
> > return 0;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx);
> > +
> > +void _drm_modeset_lock_begin(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > +struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > +unsigned int flags, int *ret)
> > +{
> > + drm_modeset_acquire_init(ctx, flags);
> > +
> > + if (state)
> > + state->acquire_ctx = ctx;
> > +
> > + *ret = -EDEADLK;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_drm_modeset_lock_begin);
> > +
> > +bool _drm_modeset_lock_loop(int *ret)
> > +{
> > + if (*ret == -EDEADLK) {
> > + *ret = 0;
> > + return true;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_drm_modeset_lock_loop);
> > +
> > +void _drm_modeset_lock_end(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > + struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > + int *ret)
> > +{
> > + if (*ret == -EDEADLK) {
> > + if (state)
> > + drm_atomic_state_clear(state);
> > +
> > + *ret = drm_modeset_backoff(ctx);
> > + if (*ret == 0) {
> > + *ret = -EDEADLK;
> > + return;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + drm_modeset_drop_locks(ctx);
> > + drm_modeset_acquire_fini(ctx);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_drm_modeset_lock_end);
> > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h b/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> > index aafd07388eb7..5eaad2533de5 100644
> > --- a/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> > +++ b/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> >
> > #include
> >
> > +struct drm_atomic_state;
> > struct drm_modeset_lock;
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -203,4 +204,23 @@ modeset_lock_fail:
> > \
> > if (!drm_drv_uses_atomic_modeset(dev)) \
> > mutex_unlock(&dev->mode_config.mutex);
> >
> > +void _drm_modeset_lock_begin(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > +struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > +unsigned int flags,
> > +int *ret);
> > +bool _drm_modeset_lock_loop(int *ret);
> > +void _drm_modeset_lock_end(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > + struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > + int *ret);
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Note that one must always use "continue" rather than
> > + * "break" or "return" to handle errors within the
> > + * drm_modeset_lock_ctx_retry() block.
>
> I'm not sold on loop macros with these kind of restrictions, C just isn't
> a great language for these. That's why e.g. drm_connector_iter doesn't
> give you a macro, but only the begin/next/end function calls explicitly.
We already use this pattern extensively in i915. Gem ww ctx has one,
power domains/pps/etc. use a similar things. It makes the code pretty nice,
with the slight caveat that an accidental 'break' can ruin your day. But
so can an accidental return with other constructs (and we even had that
happen a few times with the connector iterators), so not a dealbreaker
IMO.
So if we don't want this drm wide I guess I can propose this just for
i915 since it fits in perfectly there.
>
> Yes the macro we have is also not nice, but at least it's a screaming
> macro since it's all uppercase, so options are all a bit sucky. Which
> leads me to think we have a bit a https://xkcd.com/927/ situation going
> on.
>
> I think minimally we should have one way to do this.
Well, there is no one way atm. All you can do is hand roll all the
boilerplate (and likely get it slightly wrong) if you don't want
lock_all.
The current macros only help with lock_all, and IMO the hidden gotos
are even uglier than a hidden for loop. Fernando already hit a case
where he couldn't use the macros twice due to conflicting goto
labels.
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm: Introduce drm_modeset_lock_ctx_retry()
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 09:49:51PM +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä
>
> Quite a few places are hand rolling the modeset lock backoff dance.
> Let's suck that into a helper macro that is easier to use without
> forgetting some steps.
>
> The main downside is probably that the implementation of
> drm_with_modeset_lock_ctx() is a bit harder to read than a hand
> rolled version on account of being split across three functions,
> but the actual code using it ends up being much simpler.
>
> Cc: Sean Paul
> Cc: Daniel Vetter
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c | 44 ++
> include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h | 20 ++
> 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> index fcfe1a03c4a1..083df96632e8 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
> @@ -425,3 +425,47 @@ int drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx(struct drm_device *dev,
> return 0;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx);
> +
> +void _drm_modeset_lock_begin(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> + struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> + unsigned int flags, int *ret)
> +{
> + drm_modeset_acquire_init(ctx, flags);
> +
> + if (state)
> + state->acquire_ctx = ctx;
> +
> + *ret = -EDEADLK;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_drm_modeset_lock_begin);
> +
> +bool _drm_modeset_lock_loop(int *ret)
> +{
> + if (*ret == -EDEADLK) {
> + *ret = 0;
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_drm_modeset_lock_loop);
> +
> +void _drm_modeset_lock_end(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> +struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> +int *ret)
> +{
> + if (*ret == -EDEADLK) {
> + if (state)
> + drm_atomic_state_clear(state);
> +
> + *ret = drm_modeset_backoff(ctx);
> + if (*ret == 0) {
> + *ret = -EDEADLK;
> + return;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + drm_modeset_drop_locks(ctx);
> + drm_modeset_acquire_fini(ctx);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_drm_modeset_lock_end);
> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h b/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> index aafd07388eb7..5eaad2533de5 100644
> --- a/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
>
> #include
>
> +struct drm_atomic_state;
> struct drm_modeset_lock;
>
> /**
> @@ -203,4 +204,23 @@ modeset_lock_fail:
> \
> if (!drm_drv_uses_atomic_modeset(dev)) \
> mutex_unlock(&dev->mode_config.mutex);
>
> +void _drm_modeset_lock_begin(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> + struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> + unsigned int flags,
> + int *ret);
> +bool _drm_modeset_lock_loop(int *ret);
> +void _drm_modeset_lock_end(struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> +struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> +int *ret);
> +
> +/*
> + * Note that one must always use "continue" rather than
> + * "break" or "return" to handle errors within the
> + * drm_modeset_lock_ctx_retry() block.
I'm not sold on loop macros with these kind of restrictions, C just isn't
a great language for these. That's why e.g. drm_connector_iter doesn't
give you a macro, but only the begin/next/end function calls explicitly.
Yes the macro we have is also not nice, but at least it's a screaming
macro since it's all uppercase, so options are all a bit sucky. Which
leads me to think we have a bit a https://xkcd.com/927/ situation going
on.
I think minimally we should have one way to do this.
-Daniel
> + */
> +#define drm_modeset_lock_ctx_retry(ctx, state, flags, ret) \
> + for (_drm_modeset_lock_begin((ctx), (state), (flags), &(ret)); \
> + _drm_modeset_lock_loop(&(ret)); \
> + _drm_modeset_lock_end((ctx), (state), &(ret)))
> +
> #endif /* DRM_MODESET_LOCK_H_ */
> --
> 2.31.1
>
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
