Hi,
I can confirm that the patch indeed fixes the issue.
Kind regards,
Edmund Raile
Tested-by: Edmund Raile
On 10/3/23 19:03, Michael Tokarev wrote:
22.09.2023 12:38, Cédric Le Goater:
On 9/13/23 21:18, Alex Williamson wrote:
Hi Gerd,
Some consultation would be appreciated on this thread to get this patch
out of limbo. Is there a better solution that what I've proposed?
This does fix a regressio
22.09.2023 12:38, Cédric Le Goater:
On 9/13/23 21:18, Alex Williamson wrote:
Hi Gerd,
Some consultation would be appreciated on this thread to get this patch
out of limbo. Is there a better solution that what I've proposed?
This does fix a regression reproducible on systems with an Intel Ge
On 9/22/23 11:49, Michael Tokarev wrote:
22.09.2023 12:38, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 9/13/23 21:18, Alex Williamson wrote:
Hi Gerd,
Some consultation would be appreciated on this thread to get this patch
out of limbo. Is there a better solution that what I've proposed?
This does fix a reg
22.09.2023 12:38, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 9/13/23 21:18, Alex Williamson wrote:
Hi Gerd,
Some consultation would be appreciated on this thread to get this patch
out of limbo. Is there a better solution that what I've proposed?
This does fix a regression reproducible on systems with an In
On 9/13/23 21:18, Alex Williamson wrote:
Hi Gerd,
Some consultation would be appreciated on this thread to get this patch
out of limbo. Is there a better solution that what I've proposed?
This does fix a regression reproducible on systems with an Intel Gen 8,
my T480 laptop for instance.
Te
Hi Gerd,
Some consultation would be appreciated on this thread to get this patch
out of limbo. Is there a better solution that what I've proposed?
AFAICT, we don't have position fields to indicate the dmabuf plane is
relative to some scanout, so I think it represents the entire display.
Thanks,
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 21:00:53 +0400
Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 6:11 PM Alex Williamson
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 15:06:21 +0400
> > Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 8:29 PM Kim, Dongwon
> > > wrote:
> > > >
>
Hi
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 6:11 PM Alex Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 15:06:21 +0400
> Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 8:29 PM Kim, Dongwon wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, this regression happened not just because of renaming. Originally
> > > width and height
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 15:06:21 +0400
Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 8:29 PM Kim, Dongwon wrote:
> >
> > Ok, this regression happened not just because of renaming. Originally
> > width and height were representing the size of whole surface that guest
> > shares while scan
Hi
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 8:29 PM Kim, Dongwon wrote:
>
> Ok, this regression happened not just because of renaming. Originally
> width and height were representing the size of whole surface that guest
> shares while scanout width and height are for the each scanout. We
> realized backing_width/
Ok, this regression happened not just because of renaming. Originally
width and height were representing the size of whole surface that guest
shares while scanout width and height are for the each scanout. We
realized backing_width/height are more commonly used to specify the size
of the whole
On 16/8/23 23:55, Alex Williamson wrote:
The below referenced commit renames scanout_width/height to
backing_width/height, but also promotes these fields in various portions
of the egl interface. Meanwhile vfio dmabuf support has never used the
previous scanout fields and is therefore missed in
The below referenced commit renames scanout_width/height to
backing_width/height, but also promotes these fields in various portions
of the egl interface. Meanwhile vfio dmabuf support has never used the
previous scanout fields and is therefore missed in the update. This
results in a black screen
14 matches
Mail list logo
