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

[Maarten Maathuis]

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.