qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PULL 0/6] Egl 20211105 patches


From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [PULL 0/6] Egl 20211105 patches
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 09:17:19 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0

+Thomas & Daniel for Travis-CI

On 11/8/21 09:12, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> On 05/11/2021 18:49, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> On 11/5/21 19:26, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> On 11/5/21 18:13, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>>> On 11/5/21 7:30 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>>>>> The following changes since commit
>>>>> b1fd92137e4d485adeec8e9f292f928ff335b76c:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/bonzini/tags/for-upstream'
>>>>> into staging (2021-11-03 13:07:30 -0400)
>>>>>
>>>>> are available in the Git repository at:
>>>>>
>>>>>     git://git.kraxel.org/qemu tags/egl-20211105-pull-request
>>>>>
>>>>> for you to fetch changes up to
>>>>> 1350ff156b25be65c599ecca9957ce6726c6d383:
>>>>>
>>>>>     ui/gtk-egl: blitting partial guest fb to the proper scanout
>>>>> surface
>>>>> (2021-11-05 12:29:44 +0100)
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> gtk: a collection of egl fixes.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Dongwon Kim (6):
>>>>>     virtio-gpu: splitting one extended mode guest fb into n-scanouts
>>>>>     ui/gtk-egl: un-tab and re-tab should destroy egl surface and
>>>>> context
>>>>>     ui/gtk-egl: make sure the right context is set as the current
>>>>>     ui/gtk-egl: guest fb texture needs to be regenerated when
>>>>>       reinitializing egl
>>>>>     ui/gtk: gd_draw_event returns FALSE when no cairo surface is bound
>>>>>     ui/gtk-egl: blitting partial guest fb to the proper scanout
>>>>> surface
>>>>>
>>>>>    include/hw/virtio/virtio-gpu.h        |  5 +++--
>>>>>    include/ui/console.h                  |  4 ++++
>>>>>    hw/display/virtio-gpu-udmabuf-stubs.c |  3 ++-
>>>>>    hw/display/virtio-gpu-udmabuf.c       | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
>>>>>    hw/display/virtio-gpu.c               |  4 ++--
>>>>>    ui/egl-helpers.c                      | 25
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>>>    ui/gtk-egl.c                          | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>>    ui/gtk.c                              | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    8 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> Applied, thanks.
>>>
>>> Ubuntu 18.04.4 LTS:
>>>
>>> ui/gtk-egl.c:159:13: error: implicit declaration of function
>>> 'egl_dmabuf_release_texture' is invalid in C99
>>> [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>>>              egl_dmabuf_release_texture(vc->gfx.guest_fb.dmabuf);
>>>              ^
>>> ui/gtk-egl.c:159:13: error: this function declaration is not a prototype
>>> [-Werror,-Wstrict-prototypes]
>>> 2 errors generated.
>>>
>>> https://app.travis-ci.com/gitlab/qemu-project/qemu/builds/241272737
>>>
>>
>> This seems to fix but I have no clue whether it is correct:
>>
>> -- >8 --
>> diff --git a/ui/gtk-egl.c b/ui/gtk-egl.c
>> index f2026e4b5c9..45cb67712df 100644
>> --- a/ui/gtk-egl.c
>> +++ b/ui/gtk-egl.c
>> @@ -156,8 +156,10 @@ void gd_egl_refresh(DisplayChangeListener *dcl)
>>               surface_gl_create_texture(vc->gfx.gls, vc->gfx.ds);
>>           }
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_GBM
>>           if (vc->gfx.guest_fb.dmabuf) {
>>               egl_dmabuf_release_texture(vc->gfx.guest_fb.dmabuf);
>>               gd_egl_scanout_dmabuf(dcl, vc->gfx.guest_fb.dmabuf);
>>           }
>> +#endif
>>       }
>>
>> ---
> 
> I see the same error here trying to build QEMU git master on Debian
> Buster (oldstable). The fix looks reasonable to me in that it matches
> the CONFIG_GBM guards around other similar functions and the resulting
> binary appears to work, so:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>

Thank you, I'll post a formal patch then.

I wonder why this got merged while this configuration is covered in
Travis-CI. Is it that we have a too high failure rate than we don't
use it anymore?



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]