On Fre, 2011-03-25 at 17:21 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Like seriously you really think VFS locking rework wasn't under > >> development or discussion when you merged it? I'm sure Al would have > >> something to say about it considering the number of times he cursed in > >> irc about that code after you merged it. > > > > Umm. That code was basically over a year old by the time it was merged. > > > > How old was the code we're talking about now? Seriously? > > It was 30 lines of clean code, that really was fine to be merged in > its first form it was merely a future maintaince issue to clean up the > interface before it was released as stable. >From my POV the real failure here was that the change made it to *any* tree while there were outstanding review issues from when it was initially discussed a few weeks earlier. Then when the change was submitted â more or less unchanged â I was on my birthday weekend enjoying some time away from computers, and when I had caught up with things, it was already in drm-next. > In this case, if you had a >2 monitor setup connected to an evergreen > card, and you tried to do 3D on the 3rd monitor it would just hang the > app in a loop forever, the fix needs 3 pieces, one in the kernel, and > two userspace fixes. Actually, the hangs could be fixed in the X driver alone, but the author seems uninterested in contemplating that. Maybe because he seems to think it's easier to get the kernel fix to users, but I'm with you on that it's quite clearly the opposite. That said, I agree with your analysis in general, but not in this particular case. -- Earthling Michel DÃnzer | http://www.vmware.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
