Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: X.Org Server 1.16 ABI Breakage Causes Concern

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,658

    Default X.Org Server 1.16 ABI Breakage Causes Concern

    Phoronix: X.Org Server 1.16 ABI Breakage Causes Concern

    A late breakage to the X.Org Server 1.16 ABI is resulting in (arguably rightful) concern by the proprietary driver developers at NVIDIA...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY3NTI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    374

    Default

    How big of an impact can an API/ABI change for just cursor behavior be for NVidia to start bitching about it? I mean, the article makes it look like it was only a function or two that changes the way cursors are handled (and doesn't make it sound like a dramatic change). Surely that shouldn't be too much of a big thing for a company like NVidia...

    Also, while a frozen API/ABI is important, I'd much rather not have my cursor randomly disappearing, thank you very much :P

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    Surely that shouldn't be too much of a big thing for a company like NVidia...:P
    If running a test suite for Q&A is taking a few weeks (and I think the nvidia one must be gigantic) tossing one month of work is probably very upsetting for devs and testers.

    On the other hand I'm not sure why one should expect ABI stability from software in development, that would be nice, but you can't always have nice things.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    Surely that shouldn't be too much of a big thing for a company like NVidia...
    It's a big thing precisely for a large company like NVidia, where a release is more work than commiting a fix, tagging it and uploading a tarball - all that pesky QA gets in the way. That being said, if their QA doesn't have a shortpath for minor but important bugfixes like these, then I'm not sure their complaints are valid.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    377

    Default

    Really, this is what NVIDIA complains about:
    Code:
    -#define ABI_VIDEODRV_VERSION	SET_ABI_VERSION(17, 0)
    +#define ABI_VIDEODRV_VERSION	SET_ABI_VERSION(18, 0)
    ? Shouldn't that only be a "change one if/else statement and recompile", especially when they aren't affected by the cursor bug? Don't they need to go through the QA again cause of said cursor bug anyway?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    70

    Default

    It is only and only Nvidia problem. They do not want to develop their driver openly, so they have to suffer of all these problems...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,072

    Default

    Um, having the driver open-source does not affect the time QA takes.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAXI View Post
    Really, this is what NVIDIA complains about:
    Code:
    -#define ABI_VIDEODRV_VERSION	SET_ABI_VERSION(17, 0)
    +#define ABI_VIDEODRV_VERSION	SET_ABI_VERSION(18, 0)
    ? Shouldn't that only be a "change one if/else statement and recompile", especially when they aren't affected by the cursor bug? Don't they need to go through the QA again cause of said cursor bug anyway?
    Actually, it's more than that. They're breaking API (here's just one of the functions that change API). Patch at: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xse...84efcaa7ec873e

    Code:
    - Bool
    + void
    (*load_cursor_image) (xf86CrtcPtr crtc, CARD8 *image);
    + Bool
    + (*load_cursor_image_check) (xf86CrtcPtr crtc, CARD8 *image);

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Um, having the driver open-source does not affect the time QA takes.

    there is no need for qa in that case, cause even if the abi changes, when you compile xorg/mesa it's all ready and done. Open source drivers do not suffer from abi breakage/api breakage, cause the necessary changes are made alongside the api/abi at the same time, instead the binary blob needs constant catching up.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Porto
    Posts
    202

    Default hm?

    Quote Originally Posted by pali View Post
    It is only and only Nvidia problem. They do not want to develop their driver openly, so they have to suffer of all these problems...
    the problem is the xorg, we need a new display server. always problems with xorg support over the years, to much changes version by version without gains for users...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •