On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:32:05 +0100 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Ian Romanick <idr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On 10/27/2013 05:30 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:42:35PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote: > >>>>> Since the Mesa merge window is closing soon, I'm finally getting back on > >>>>> this. I've pushed a rebase of my old Mesa branch to my fd.o repo > >>>>> > >>>>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~idr/mesa/log/?h=robustness3 > >>>>> > >>>>> I have a couple questions... > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Has any of this landed an a kernel tree anywhere? > >>>> > >>>> Afaik everything but the actual ioctl and i-g-t testcase has landed. > >>> > >>> And that stuff will land once my patches hit the Mesa list or ... ? > >> > >> Yup. > > > > Hey kernel first, then upstream projects, at the moment libdrm has > > ioctls in it that I have no upstream solid kernel commit for, > > > > Either in the next 24 hrs I have this in my tree or the libdrm commits > > need to be reverted, > > > > and if someone releases libdrm in that time span then I'm going to be > > quite pissed. > > It's kinda too late imo for 3.13 (and there's an open question whether > we need one more flag or not), so I wanted to pull it in into 3.14. > Which also gives us plenty of time to add or not add that optional > flag. So I guess time to revert. Can you do that pls? This ioctl is tiny and self-contained. So it seems like as long as the Mesa team is good with it (i.e. using it successfully), there shouldn't be a problem pushing it now. There's no risk of regression as it's a new feature and isolated. Dave? -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
