[webkit-efl] Fixing --no-tiled-backing-store build

Vyacheslav Ostapenko ostap73 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 29 09:04:46 PDT 2013

Hi Ed,

  Great work!

  The only thing, that "tiled-backing-store" is a misused flag in this case
and, IMHO, "accelerated compositing" switch should be used in this case.
This flag was used because of "historical" reasons and it might be a good
time to fix it also .

  Also, --no-tiled-backing-store works as a workaround because it is
switches off texture mapper based accelerated compositing drawing which
uses opengl by default and because of this needs GLX . But texture mapper
has fallback mode when it uses ImageBuffer as a "texture" . To enable this
creating of EvasGLContext should be disabled. I remember Yael was fixing
it. IMHO, it would be better workaround for the Xvfb GLX regression.

> Another point is how to avoid this kind of breakages in the future.

  Have "minimal" build bot like Qt has?


On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Ed Bartosh <bartosh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi *Kalyan,*
> *
> *
> *Thank you for your suggestions. I'll split the bug. It looks like "one
> patch for one bug" rule is assumed in the current workflow as tools like
> webkit-patch automatically obsolete previous patches in the bug when new
> one is uploaded.*
> *
> *
> *BTW, another newbie question: How can I assign myself to the bug? Or
> should I ask someone else with sufficient rights to do that?
> *
> Regarding support --no-tiled-backing-store I also thought that one of the
> possible ways to go is to drop support of it completely. However, in
> current situation it means that developers using latest versions of major
> Linux distros are blocked by this issue.
> Another point is how to avoid this kind of breakages in the future. As
> Laszlo mentioned in the bug without being continuously tested builds with
> non-default options will tend to regress to build failures. From my point
> of view it boils down to the amount of build resources we have for testing.
> It's not a big deal to run build with --no-tiled-backing-store or other
> option for every commit, but this is very resource-consuming. Alternatively
> it might make sense to get rid of as many options as we can if we can't
> ensure that non-default builds don't fail. This will at least make code
> much more readable as a lot of #ifs will be cleaned up.
> Regards,
> Ed
> 2013/3/29 kalyan kondapally <kondapallykalyan at gmail.com>
>> HI Ed,
>> Thanks for the effort.
>> Reg Adding checks:
>> With X fix in, it boils down to whether we want to support
>> --no-tiled-backing-store or not.
>> AC checks make sense to me (unless we decide not to support non Ac
>> composition mode on UI process side.). Coordinated graphics checks seem
>> un-necessary as most of the classes are WebKit2 related. Someone more
>> familiar with the code might think otherwise :)
>> Reg Reviewers:
>> You already have Laszlo,* Gyuyoung Kim participating in the discussion.
>> Kenneth, MIkhail are already in cc.
>> *
>> *As you have already split the patches to smaller ones, you might want
>> to create new bugs to each one and make the current one as blocked by
>> others. This would at least help to focus the discussion for that
>> particular check. (i.e coordinated graphics, tiledbackinstore and AC )
>> *
>> *br,
>> Kalyan
>>  *
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Ed Bartosh <bartosh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Thanks for you comments guys. I really appreciate that.
>>> I'd like to point out that even if xserver doesn't have regression my
>>> fixes still make sense as they  wrap code in #ifs depending on the features
>>> like 3D_GRAPHICS, ACCELERATED_COMPOSITING, etc. So, they have some value by
>>> themselves, not just because they fix --no-tiled-backing-store build.
>>> Considering Gyuyoung's comment in the bug about removing coorditaned
>>> graphics I'm going to split my patch to several patches just to make
>>> them accepted easier.
>>> Sorry for the newby question. Any suggestions whom to ask for review?
>>> I'm new to this project and  it's not clear for me what to do to make my
>>> changes landed in the tree faster.
>>> Thank you,
>>> Ed
>>> 2013/3/28 Tiago Vignatti <tiago.vignatti at linux.intel.com>
>>>> Xorg 1.13.2 has the proper fix in place. In the ideal world, distros
>>>> would update for the latest minor version of Xorg and then you would just
>>>> fetch it in your machine...
>>>> Tiago
>>>> On 03/28/2013 03:36 AM, Gyuyoung Kim wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> As I commented on the bug, I think it would be best X server 1.13.0
>>>>> supports WebKit EFL layout test. However, if it will not support EFL
>>>>> layout test in the near future, it looks we may need to support
>>>>> --no-tiled-backing-store option again. Because I also heard that some
>>>>> WebKit EFL engineers suffered from this issue. But, I still think best
>>>>> is to support X server 1.13.0 on EFL.
>>>>> Any other opinions?
>>>>> Gyuyoung.
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Ed Bartosh <bartosh at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:bartosh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>>     I need your suggestions.
>>>>>     I'm trying to fix EFL build with disabled accelerated composition
>>>>>     (--no-tiled-backing-store build option).
>>>>>     I used this option because of X server 1.13.0
>>>>>     <http://lists.webkit.org/**pipermail/webkit-efl/2012-**
>>>>> November/000434.html<http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-efl/2012-November/000434.html>>
>>>>> issue,
>>>>>     mentioned here:
>>>>>     http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/**WebKitEFLLayoutTest#**Knownissues<http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKitEFLLayoutTest#Knownissues>
>>>>>     I'm trying to build on Ubuntu 12.10, which has X server 1.13.0 with
>>>>>     this regression.
>>>>>     It was not that easy to fix this as I suspected as it's required a
>>>>>     lot of changes, but it was fun and I learned a bit of WebKit code.
>>>>>     You can see some details in this bug:
>>>>>     https://bugs.webkit.org/show_**bug.cgi?id=11315<https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11315>
>>>>>     <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_**bug.cgi?id=113153<https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113153>
>>>>> >3
>>>>>     Can you please suggest what should I do next? Should I split this
>>>>>     patch to several patches or leave it as it is? Whom to ask for
>>>>> review?
>>>>>     Considering the amount of changes was it at all feasible to fix
>>>>> this
>>>>>     build or it would be better to simply get rid of
>>>>>     --no-tiled-backing-store option?
>>>>>     Thank you,
>>>>>     --
>>>>>     BR,
>>>>>     Ed
>>>>>     ______________________________**_________________
>>>>>     webkit-efl mailing list
>>>>>     webkit-efl at lists.webkit.org <mailto:webkit-efl at lists.**webkit.org<webkit-efl at lists.webkit.org>
>>>>> >
>>>>>     https://lists.webkit.org/**mailman/listinfo/webkit-efl<https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-efl>
>>>>>  --
>>> BR,
>>> Ed
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> webkit-efl mailing list
>>> webkit-efl at lists.webkit.org
>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-efl
> --
> BR,
> Ed
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-efl mailing list
> webkit-efl at lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-efl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-efl/attachments/20130329/a4f61cd1/attachment.html>

More information about the webkit-efl mailing list