On 02/12/2016 07:32 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com> wrote:
On 02/12/2016 02:04 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 11 February 2016 at 12:03, Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com> wrote:
From: Bernard Kilarski <bernard.r.kilar...@intel.com>
Here we should have justification why this is needed. If there is a
program affected (or bugzilla ticket opened) do mentioned it as well
please.
These patches are part of bigger set (which I try to help to reduce) from a
internal customer branch with rather exotic stack and components. I'm not
sure if there's anything better than "we need more dynamic entries to be
available, current range is not enough" for justification here, does that
suffice?
No... we want to understand the code we're maintaining, and that means
having justification for changes that go into Mesa.
Well .. I guess in this case it's rather simple though. This is not
about changing functionality but resizing a hardcoded table of available
entries to be bigger so that caller of API can utilize more slots in
dispatch table. This is how I understand the change.
// Tapani
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
