There are also patches 2, 3, and 4 which you didn't review (3,4) or
didn't agree with (2).
Marek
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote:
> Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> _NEW_TRANSFORM_FEEDBACK is not used by core Mesa, so it can be removed.
>> Instead, an new private flag is added to i965 to serve the same purpose.
>>
>> If you're new to this:
>
>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_state_upload.c
>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_state_upload.c
>> index 8c56245..083b619 100644
>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_state_upload.c
>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_state_upload.c
>> @@ -345,7 +345,6 @@ static struct dirty_bit_map mesa_bits[] = {
>> DEFINE_BIT(_NEW_PROGRAM_CONSTANTS),
>> DEFINE_BIT(_NEW_BUFFER_OBJECT),
>> DEFINE_BIT(_NEW_FRAG_CLAMP),
>> - DEFINE_BIT(_NEW_TRANSFORM_FEEDBACK),
>> DEFINE_BIT(_NEW_VARYING_VP_INPUTS),
>> {0, 0, 0}
>> };
>
> There should be a corresponding DEFINE_BIT addition for
> BRW_NEW_TRANSFORM_FEEDBACK.
>
> With that fixed in this patch and the NEW_RASTERIZER_DISCARD, these two
> patches are:
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net>
>
> I think that's all the review for this series now?
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
