On Fri 27 Jan 2017, Rafael Antognolli wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 07:18:24PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > On 17-01-23 15:32:32, Chad Versace wrote: > > > On Fri 20 Jan 2017, Rafael Antognolli wrote: > > > > I have tested this series with the branches that you mentioned, and with > > > > piglit with the patches from my own branch: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/rantogno/piglit/tree/review/fences-v02 > > > > > > > > Everything seems to work fine. You can add: > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Rafael Antognolli <rafael.antogno...@intel.com> > > > > > > > > I also have gone through these patches several times while they were > > > > under development, and they look good to me. So if you disregard my > > > > shallow knowledge of Mesa, you could add: > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Rafael Antognolli <rafael.antogno...@intel.com> > > > > > > Thanks. I've added the rb's and tb's locally. > > > > So IMO, Rafael is a great person to review this. He's underselling his > > knowledge > > to his detriment. Is there something preventing pushing these patches? > > I believe there's nothing technically blocking it from landing, but Chad > wanted to push them only after the kernel patches had landed.
Right. I'm waiting for the kernel devs to agree to Chris's execbuffer fence fd patch. > Hi Chris, do we have everything we need now to have the kernel side to > land? Mesa is still blocked on this i915 patch: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2017-January/117998.html _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
