On 10/02/16 17:39, Ben Widawsky wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:23:08PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 07:42:23AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
Do you guys get the CI mails? This version has regressions. v1 did not. I don't
know what to trust.
I didn't even see v2 itself!
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 09:39:33AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:23:08PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 07:42:23AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > Do you guys get the CI mails? This version has regressions. v1 did not. I
> > > don't
> > > know wha
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:23:08PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 07:42:23AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > Do you guys get the CI mails? This version has regressions. v1 did not. I
> > don't
> > know what to trust.
>
> I didn't even see v2 itself!
>
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 20
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 07:42:23AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Do you guys get the CI mails? This version has regressions. v1 did not. I
> don't
> know what to trust.
I didn't even see v2 itself!
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:44:12AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > This behavior of checking for
Do you guys get the CI mails? This version has regressions. v1 did not. I don't
know what to trust.
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:44:12AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> This behavior of checking for a shmem backed GEM object was introduced here:
> commit 4c914c0c7c787b8f730128a8cdcca9c50b0784ab
> Autho
This behavior of checking for a shmem backed GEM object was introduced here:
commit 4c914c0c7c787b8f730128a8cdcca9c50b0784ab
Author: Brad Volkin
Date: Tue Feb 18 10:15:45 2014 -0800
drm/i915: Refactor shmem pread setup
It is possible for an object to not be a shmem backed GEM object (for e
