On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:15:27PM +0200, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
...
> Ever since the code started to resemble something sane, I've tried
> to avoid squashing patches, just in case someone was actually trying
> to follow what's changed. But clearly some of the patches can
> be squashe
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 03:17:38PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:15:27PM +0200, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > Another month, another massive atomic patchset.
> >
> > I managed to clean up warts left over from the modeset-rework rebase,
> > but other than that
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:15:27PM +0200, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> Another month, another massive atomic patchset.
>
> I managed to clean up warts left over from the modeset-rework rebase,
> but other than that I haven't really found the time to touch this too
> much since the last t
Another month, another massive atomic patchset.
I managed to clean up warts left over from the modeset-rework rebase,
but other than that I haven't really found the time to touch this too
much since the last time I posted patches from this set.
Seeing as my schedule isn't getting any less busy in
