Bug 75212

There are a couple of solutions for this [1] [2]. I would prefer the latter as I've never been a fan of black/white listing.

Eric are you leaning towards either solution ? Can we get an ack or your thoughts if you are not keen on either one ?

Thanks

[1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2014-January/052888.html
[2] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2014-January/052981.html

The bisected commit git-7bd95ec also caused Chrome "webgl" can't be enabled(bug 75739).

I'm guessing the problem was just this:

commit b959fd9674938e127a34d42d34b903e3a9ae7ad9
Author: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
Date:   Thu Jan 30 10:19:44 2014 -0800

    dri: Require libudev-dev for building DRI on Linux.

Right, I used --disable-dri3, and libudev-dev was forced only for DRI3.

Next problem with b959fd9674938e127a34d42d34b903e3a9ae7ad9 is that alhtough it checks for libudev-dev, it doesn't check that it's for right architecture. Everything builds fine, but programs can crash on same system due to assert in loader because there was libudev-dev for 64-bit, but there was no libudev for 32-bit (if you were building for 32-bit).

That's easier to debug than Mesa using wrong driver/SW rendering, so verifying.

Hi,

I am using the dri2 driver on a non-udev system, this commit
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/commit/configure.ac?id=b959fd9674938e127a34d42d34b903e3a9ae7ad9
breaks compilation for me.

This patch fixes the problem by moving the udev check to the dri3 module
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/346792/

As a reply to http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2014-January/052990.html
"I'm still fairly astounded that a Linux user who cares about 3D graphics would not have udev."

I am using xbmc on a uclibc-based buildroot-compiled linux system which does not ship udev, it uses busybox mdev instead because the distro is aimed at small systems (design choice by developers which I can not influence) but can also run on recent Intel SB/IB/HSW CPUs.

(In reply to comment #5)
> Hi,
> 
> I am using the dri2 driver on a non-udev system, this commit
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/commit/configure.
> ac?id=b959fd9674938e127a34d42d34b903e3a9ae7ad9
> breaks compilation for me.
> 
> This patch fixes the problem by moving the udev check to the dri3 module
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/346792/
> 
> As a reply to
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2014-January/052990.html
> "I'm still fairly astounded that a Linux user who cares about 3D graphics
> would not have udev."
> 
> I am using xbmc on a uclibc-based buildroot-compiled linux system which does
> not ship udev, it uses busybox mdev instead because the distro is aimed at
> small systems (design choice by developers which I can not influence) but
> can also run on recent Intel SB/IB/HSW CPUs.

udev != libudev. The latter can be used without the presence of the former as it is a selection of helper functions that helps abstract dev manipulations.

AFAICS you have a couple options here - install libudev or keep a bunch of local patches. I would encourage you go with the former.

The kernel I have to use is compiled without CONFIG_DEVTMPFS and without CONFIG_FHANDLE.

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/README states that at least these options are required, the later one explicitly for libudev, so using libudev seems not to be an option for me :(

(In reply to comment #7)
> The kernel I have to use is compiled without CONFIG_DEVTMPFS and without
> CONFIG_FHANDLE.
> 
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/README states that at least
> these options are required, the later one explicitly for libudev, so using
> libudev seems not to be an option for me :(

Why not file a bug with your distribution mentioning that Mesa now requires libudev (but not udev), and asking them to enable the necessary options?  CONFIG_FHANDLE appears to add no additional runtime cost, and adds a single syscall that's maybe 100 lines of code.  Basically nothing.

We'd really like to avoid having to maintain multiple paths.

(In reply to comment #8)

> Why not file a bug with your distribution mentioning that Mesa now requires
> libudev (but not udev)

Hi,

I found a way to include libudev in the distro, so you can disregard my comment :)