[PATCH 1/3] exa/driver: set pExaPixmap->use_gpu_copy to the right value

Maarten Maathuis madman2003 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 7 13:44:24 PST 2011


On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Jeremy Huddleston <jeremyhu at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 7, 2011, at 09:24, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
>
>> 2011/2/7 Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net>:
>>> On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 09:34 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:06:14 +0100, Maarten Maathuis <madman2003 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Not sure if it was causing problems, but you never know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Maathuis <madman2003 at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Merged all three of these patches.
>>>>>   246d40b..541b250  master -> master
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> keith.packard at intel.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These three exa patches should probably go into 1.9 branch.
>>>
>>> Agreed for af87f6367ef733d1a4f3cfca4eeb92bfd84c2b6f, the others seem
>>> borderline stable material at best.
>>
>> At the moment i agree with Michel.
>
> Pushed just the one:
>   ce83d1b..0a4b0de  server-1.9-branch -> server-1.9-branch
>
> Although 648d4fe5172 does feel 1.9-worthy.  What are the risks in pulling it in?  Are we afraid that using the GPU version will produce different results?

It usually only does gpu pixmaps (gpu pixmap == driver managed
pixmap). There is a chance this version of exa never hits a codepath
where this value is used. I don't see much risk, except that few
people test/use that type of exa and we don't want to burden them with
problems in a stable branch.

>
> --Jeremy
>
>



-- 
Far away from the primal instinct, the song seems to fade away, the
river get wider between your thoughts and the things we do and say.


More information about the xorg-devel mailing list