On 10/03/2011 06:46 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> It does now (I had a spinlock mishap).. which reminds me - how
> do I test these patches with your vmwgfx driver? I've an old version
> of VMWare Workstation 8, would that do?
>
VMware workstation 8 is OK (it's actually the latest versio
On 09/30/2011 04:09 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:59:52AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>
>> Konrad,
>>
>> I'm really sorry for taking so long to review this.
>>
> That is OK. We all are busy - and it gave me some time to pretty
> up the code even more.
>
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 06:35:42PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 09/30/2011 04:09 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:59:52AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> >>Konrad,
> >>
> >>I'm really sorry for taking so long to review this.
> >That is OK. We all are busy - and
On 10/03/2011 06:46 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
It does now (I had a spinlock mishap).. which reminds me - how
do I test these patches with your vmwgfx driver? I've an old version
of VMWare Workstation 8, would that do?
VMware workstation 8 is OK (it's actually the latest version of
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 06:35:42PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 09/30/2011 04:09 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:59:52AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> >>Konrad,
> >>
> >>I'm really sorry for taking so long to review this.
> >That is OK. We all are busy - and
On 09/30/2011 04:09 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:59:52AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
Konrad,
I'm really sorry for taking so long to review this.
That is OK. We all are busy - and it gave me some time to pretty
up the code even more.
I'd like to
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:59:52AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Konrad,
>
> I'm really sorry for taking so long to review this.
That is OK. We all are busy - and it gave me some time to pretty
up the code even more.
>
> I'd like to go through a couple of high-level things first before
> rev
Konrad,
I'm really sorry for taking so long to review this.
I'd like to go through a couple of high-level things first before
reviewing the coding itself.
The page_alloc_func structure looks nice, but I'd like to have it per
ttm backend,
we would just need to make sure that the backend is aliv
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:59:52AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Konrad,
>
> I'm really sorry for taking so long to review this.
That is OK. We all are busy - and it gave me some time to pretty
up the code even more.
>
> I'd like to go through a couple of high-level things first before
> rev
Konrad,
I'm really sorry for taking so long to review this.
I'd like to go through a couple of high-level things first before
reviewing the coding itself.
The page_alloc_func structure looks nice, but I'd like to have it per
ttm backend,
we would just need to make sure that the backend is al
[.. and this is what I said in v1 post]:
Way back in January this patchset:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2011-January/006905.html
was merged in, but pieces of it had to be reverted b/c they did not
work properly under PowerPC, ARM, and when swapping out pages to disk.
After a b
[.. and this is what I said in v1 post]:
Way back in January this patchset:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2011-January/006905.html
was merged in, but pieces of it had to be reverted b/c they did not
work properly under PowerPC, ARM, and when swapping out pages to disk.
After a b
12 matches
Mail list logo
