On 03.05.2012 19:34, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
>> wrote:
>>> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian K?nig
>>> wrote:
Hi Dave,
there still seems to be the need for some further discussion a
2012/5/3 Christian K?nig :
> On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
>>> ?wrote:
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian
> K?nig
> ?wrot
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
>>> ?wrote:
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Chr
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse :
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
>> wrote:
>>> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian K?nig
?wrote:
>
> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome
2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse :
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian K?nig
>>> ?wrote:
On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Chri
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian K?nig
>> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian K?nig
?wrote:
>
>
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian K?nig
>> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
>>> code,
>>> so I again split tha
On 03.05.2012 19:34, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Christian König wrote:
On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
wrote:
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19
2012/5/3 Christian König :
> On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
>>> wrote:
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian
> König
> wrot
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Christian König wrote:
> On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
>>> wrote:
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Chri
On 03.05.2012 19:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
wrote:
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König
wrote:
On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11
2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse :
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
> wrote:
>> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König
>>> wrote:
On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Chri
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> 2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse :
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König
wrote:
>
> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome
On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
>> code,
>> so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
>>
>> Most of the st
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
wrote:
> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian König
wrote:
>
>
On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König wrote:
On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian König
wrote:
Hi Dave,
there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
code,
so I ag
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König wrote:
> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
>>> code,
>>> so I again split that
>
> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
> code,
> so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
>
> Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes, so to
> avoid
> mailing around unrelated and already reviewed pa
>
> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
> code,
> so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
>
> Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes, so to
> avoid
> mailing around unrelated and already reviewed pa
On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian König wrote:
Hi Dave,
there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA code,
so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
Most of the stuff still works fine w
Hi Dave,
there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA code,
so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes, so to avoid
mailing around unrelated and already reviewed patches, I
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
> code,
> so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
>
> Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes,
So here are sa improvement, ib pool cleanup and semaphore cleanup.
Those are Christian patches rebased on top of its last 17 patchset
and on top of sa allocator change.
The idea is that the sa_bo struct is not free until associated fence
is signaled. Meanwhile the ib structure or the semaphore/fen
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian König wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
> code,
> so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
>
> Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes,
So here are sa improvement, ib pool cleanup and semaphore cleanup.
Those are Christian patches rebased on top of its last 17 patchset
and on top of sa allocator change.
The idea is that the sa_bo struct is not free until associated fence
is signaled. Meanwhile the ib structure or the semaphore/fen
Hi Dave,
there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA code,
so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes, so to avoid
mailing around unrelated and already reviewed patches, I
28 matches
Mail list logo