On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 09:13:34AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 03:11:36PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> We possibly missed the boat on redefining rmfb semantics for atomic
> >> userspace to something more sane, unless pe
On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 03:11:36PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> We possibly missed the boat on redefining rmfb semantics for atomic
>> userspace to something more sane, unless perhaps the few existing atomic
>> userspaces (CrOS?) could confirm t
On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 03:11:36PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> We possibly missed the boat on redefining rmfb semantics for atomic
> userspace to something more sane, unless perhaps the few existing atomic
> userspaces (CrOS?) could confirm that this change won't cause problems
> (in which case we co
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> We possibly missed the boat on redefining rmfb semantics for atomic
> userspace to something more sane, unless perhaps the few existing atomic
> userspaces (CrOS?) could confirm that this change won't cause problems
> (in which case we could just
We possibly missed the boat on redefining rmfb semantics for atomic
userspace to something more sane, unless perhaps the few existing atomic
userspaces (CrOS?) could confirm that this change won't cause problems
(in which case we could just call this a bug-fix, drop the cap, and
delete some code?).
