On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 04:25:45PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > >> Gerd, can you pls retest? I think due to your change in the above
> > >> referenced commit to switch to active_only=true in commit_planes() this
> > >> is
> > >> now broken.
> > >
> > > Yes, probably it'll break things.
> > >
>
> >> Gerd, can you pls retest? I think due to your change in the above
> >> referenced commit to switch to active_only=true in commit_planes() this is
> >> now broken.
> >
> > Yes, probably it'll break things.
> >
> > Any branch I can test? Your "stuff" branch seems to not yet have the
> > commit
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Fr, 2016-06-10 at 17:20 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:07:53AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > Now that the core helpers support nonblocking atomic commits there's
>> > no need to invent that wheel separately (
On Fr, 2016-06-10 at 17:20 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:07:53AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Now that the core helpers support nonblocking atomic commits there's
> > no need to invent that wheel separately (instead of fixing the bug in
> > the atomic implementation of
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:07:53AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Now that the core helpers support nonblocking atomic commits there's
> no need to invent that wheel separately (instead of fixing the bug in
> the atomic implementation of virtio, as it should have been done!).
>
> v2: Rebased on top
Now that the core helpers support nonblocking atomic commits there's
no need to invent that wheel separately (instead of fixing the bug in
the atomic implementation of virtio, as it should have been done!).
v2: Rebased on top of
commit e7cf0963f816fa44190caaf51aeffaa614c340c6
Author: Gerd Hoffman
