[ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael Wysocki
to the message ]
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month ago
> against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the regression being
> a
2011/5/20 Rafael J. Wysocki
> It is on the list of known regressions from 2.6.37, but we're not tracking
> them any more now that 2.6.39 is out.
Hopefully Chris is still tracking them, even if you aren't.
Chris? What other information can the affected person provide, or what
tests can he run to
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> Quite frankly, I don't understand intel-gfx developers attitude: why is
> it me, just random user who is nitpicking here? Why there is no
> interest/will to analyze now obviously buggy/duplicate code and fix it?
Because they don't have an in
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
>> If you like, submit a patch. You may now be more up-to-date on those
>> particular code paths than most of the intel-gfx developers.
>
> Ray, I'd agree with you if the topic was about cleanups.
At this point it is about cleanups unless Kei
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> Quite frankly, I don't understand intel-gfx developers attitude: why is
> it me, just random user who is nitpicking here? Why there is no
> interest/will to analyze now obviously buggy/duplicate code and fix it?
Because they don't have an in
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
>> If you like, submit a patch. You may now be more up-to-date on those
>> particular code paths than most of the intel-gfx developers.
>
> Ray, I'd agree with you if the topic was about cleanups.
At this point it is about cleanups unless Kei
[ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael Wysocki
to the message ]
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month ago
> against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the regression being
> a
2011/5/20 Rafael J. Wysocki
> It is on the list of known regressions from 2.6.37, but we're not tracking
> them any more now that 2.6.39 is out.
Hopefully Chris is still tracking them, even if you aren't.
Chris? What other information can the affected person provide, or what
tests can he run to
