On 12/03/2025 10:39, Philipp Stanner wrote:
On Tue, 2025-03-11 at 09:23 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
There has repeatedly been quite a bit of apprehension when any change
to the DRM
scheduler is proposed, with two main reasons being code base is
considered
fragile, not well understood and not
On Thu, 2025-03-13 at 10:15 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 13/03/2025 08:34, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > On Wed, 2025-03-12 at 14:33 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/03/2025 13:49, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > > > There I see a UAF. Do you have an
On 13/03/2025 08:34, Philipp Stanner wrote:
On Wed, 2025-03-12 at 14:33 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 12/03/2025 13:49, Philipp Stanner wrote:
[snip]
There I see a UAF. Do you have an idea what that might be? I
would only
expect memory leaks and the test assertions failing.
It is expec
On Wed, 2025-03-12 at 14:33 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 12/03/2025 13:49, Philipp Stanner wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > > There I see a UAF. Do you have an idea what that might be? I
> > > > > would only
> > > > > expect memory leaks and the test assertions failing.
> > > >
> > > > It is
On 12/03/2025 13:49, Philipp Stanner wrote:
[snip]
There I see a UAF. Do you have an idea what that might be? I
would only
expect memory leaks and the test assertions failing.
It is expected all hell to break loose in aspirational mode. There
the
mock scheduler shutdown relies solely on drm
On Wed, 2025-03-12 at 13:35 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 12/03/2025 13:27, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >
> > On 12/03/2025 12:35, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2025-03-12 at 10:50 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 12/03/2025 10:39, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > > > > On Tue,
On 12/03/2025 13:27, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 12/03/2025 12:35, Philipp Stanner wrote:
On Wed, 2025-03-12 at 10:50 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 12/03/2025 10:39, Philipp Stanner wrote:
On Tue, 2025-03-11 at 09:23 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
There has repeatedly been quite a bit of app
On 12/03/2025 12:35, Philipp Stanner wrote:
On Wed, 2025-03-12 at 10:50 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 12/03/2025 10:39, Philipp Stanner wrote:
On Tue, 2025-03-11 at 09:23 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
There has repeatedly been quite a bit of apprehension when any
change
to the DRM
schedule
On Wed, 2025-03-12 at 10:50 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 12/03/2025 10:39, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > On Tue, 2025-03-11 at 09:23 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > There has repeatedly been quite a bit of apprehension when any
> > > change
> > > to the DRM
> > > scheduler is proposed, with
On Tue, 2025-03-11 at 09:23 +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> There has repeatedly been quite a bit of apprehension when any change
> to the DRM
> scheduler is proposed, with two main reasons being code base is
> considered
> fragile, not well understood and not very well documented, and
> secondly th
There has repeatedly been quite a bit of apprehension when any change to the DRM
scheduler is proposed, with two main reasons being code base is considered
fragile, not well understood and not very well documented, and secondly the lack
of systematic testing outside the vendor specific tests suites
11 matches
Mail list logo
