On 19 August 2016 at 03:09, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote: > On 19/08/16 11:02 AM, Yu, Qiang wrote: >> >> Each point of the patch set is not broken. Patches are arranged like >> this to show how I do it: >> 1. create a pageflip.c to host common page flip code >> 2. copy amdgpu DDX DRI2 page flip code to modesetting dri2.c >> 3. merge common DRI2 and present page flip code to pageflip.c >> >> Patch 4 is not a fix for broken code, just a commit from amdgpu DDX >> to prevent present and DRI2 from flipping at the same time. > > This does mean though that if one has only up to patch 3 applied (e.g. > during a bisection), one is exposed to the issues fixed by patch 4. So > maybe patch 4 should be squashed into patch 3. > Precisely what I meant with "broken" - new code introduces a functionality which conflicts with existing one. And yes, one can see the code flow (and that it's partially copied from amdgpu/ati) As-is the series brings unnecessary churn, since it adds new code only to (re)move it. Something many developers/projects consider a bad way to split patches. Thanks Emil
