On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:54:54 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > I think only the first hunk should be part of this patch - the later two > hunks make more sense squashed together with the last patch. At least that > would avoid me going a bit wtf here and then again on the last patch where > the from_obj->dirty=1 gets removed and smashed into move_to_active. Until > I've realized what's going on here ;-) When I've rewritten this patch to be more correct (handle the swap-in case as well), it will make more sense the way it is in this patch. Honestly. :) -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
