Patch for bug #1912 applied incorrectly to 6.8 branch

[Alan Coopersmith]

Michel Dänzer wrote:
> I'm afraid you still don't understand. This commit wasn't supposed to
> have anything to do with bug #1220 (the commit description is
> inconsistent and wrong too); the only valid patch for that was applied
> correctly in September, as you noted.
> 
> The extraneous line in this commit wasn't part of any patch I've seen
> (or I would have objected), it came out of blue air.

I think we're closing in on violent agreement here. I'm looking at the changes 
to xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.c that went into
the XORG-6_8-branch.    cvsweb lists them at:

http://cvs.freedesktop.org/xorg/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.c?only_with_tag=XORG-6_8-branch

The last commit to that file in that branch was on Dec. 17 (in the UTC
CVS records under) when Roland committed the patch I mentioned previously,
which was recorded as:

   * xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.c
   Bugzilla #1912 (https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1220)
   attachment #980 (https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=980):
   Fix garbage screen on radeon cards which may appear after a system
   suspend/resume cycle.
   Patch by Matthias Hopf <mhopf at suse.de>

There's a mismatch in the description of the patch - it says Bugzilla #1912,
which corresponds to the patch you're asking about, but also lists the bug
number as #1220 in the link, which matches the attachment #980 shown for this
commit.   It looks like the two patches (bug #1912/patch #1433 and bug 
#1220/patch #980) somehow got merged into this single commit, and that the 
changes to radeon_driver.c between the time the diff was made for patch #980
and when the patch was applied (including the original commit of the fix #980
back in September) caused the patch #980 portion of the change to appear in
the wrong section of the code the second time around.

Of course, that's mostly academic, and the real question is how bad is the bug
introduced by the extra line of code?   Bad for performance?   Likely to cause
crashes or hangs?

-- 
	-Alan Coopersmith-           alan.coopersmith at sun.com
	 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering