On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 06:22:36PM +0000, Mateo Lozano, Oscar wrote: > > > This test hasn't been terribly effective at provoking the bug it tries > > > to hit, so I think we can just unconditionally use the lower limit. > > > That also helps with the really long runtime of this case a bit. > > > -Daniel > > Understood. I´ll simplify the patch and send it again then. > > > FWIW, all 3 of these patches, or their equivalents were in the branch I sent in > > my cover letter. > > I saw your series and I thought that I better send these patches over, but I missed that point in your cover letter, sorry :( > How should we do it, then? will Daniel take them directly from your branch? > > -- Oscar You're fine. Use these when support is merged. My point to Daniel was reiterating that this was tested on the patches I've submitted. (though not with the identical patches). -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
