On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 21:54:03 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:16:13 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> >> > For whatever libdrm knock-it-off-with-the-overallocation patch we s
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:16:13 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> > For whatever libdrm knock-it-off-with-the-overallocation patch we settle
>> > on, it's going to trigger the bug with the 2D driver
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:16:13 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > For whatever libdrm knock-it-off-with-the-overallocation patch we settle
> > on, it's going to trigger the bug with the 2D driver underallocating
> > framebuffer memory on my 1440x900 la
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> For whatever libdrm knock-it-off-with-the-overallocation patch we settle
> on, it's going to trigger the bug with the 2D driver underallocating
> framebuffer memory on my 1440x900 laptop. I've pushed tested patches to
> both branches, and my pl
For whatever libdrm knock-it-off-with-the-overallocation patch we settle
on, it's going to trigger the bug with the 2D driver underallocating
framebuffer memory on my 1440x900 laptop. I've pushed tested patches to
both branches, and my plan is to roll point releases of those, and
mention in the li
