On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:49:00 +0200
Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:43:12AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:24:11 +0200
> > Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 01:39:45PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > > Implement the context switch co
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:43:12AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:24:11 +0200
> Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 01:39:45PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > Implement the context switch code as well as the interfaces to do the
> > > context switch. This patc
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 01:39:45PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Implement the context switch code as well as the interfaces to do the
> context switch. This patch also doesn't match 1:1 with the RFC patches.
> The main difference is that from Daniel's responses the last context
> object is now stor
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:24:11 +0200
Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 01:39:45PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > Implement the context switch code as well as the interfaces to do the
> > context switch. This patch also doesn't match 1:1 with the RFC patches.
> > The main difference is
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 01:39:45PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Implement the context switch code as well as the interfaces to do the
> context switch. This patch also doesn't match 1:1 with the RFC patches.
> The main difference is that from Daniel's responses the last context
> object is now stor
Implement the context switch code as well as the interfaces to do the
context switch. This patch also doesn't match 1:1 with the RFC patches.
The main difference is that from Daniel's responses the last context
object is now stored instead of the last context. This aids in allows us
to free the con
