On 2016.10.17 16:07:50 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Yeah might be best to have a new branch with upstreaming stuff (now you > need to at least split out bugfixes for the already merged stuff) and > treat that like a mostly stable branch. And the still unmerged features > (vfio and all that) would then get rebased on top of that. > yeah, plan to do so, vfio part hasn't been merged, will rebase on new branch. > > Also I already screwed up the merge, it doesn't even compile :( Sorry > about that. Can you pls create a quick fixup patch just to make it work > again and submit to intel-gfx? That way I can apply it directly. > Done. As currently GVT-g code is closed bound to some i915 struct and interface, any change for i915 interface might be possible to affect GVT-g. As general rule API changer should cover for us too, but we might try to capture that earlier, well at least 0day guy will shout out loudly. -- Open Source Technology Center, Intel ltd. $gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4D781827
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
