Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> This change appears to be unrelated, and possibly harmful (if X has >> dropped the last ref to the BO, but it's still the scanout buffer, a new >> allocation would now reuse the BO and scribble on scanout until the next >> modeset happens). > > Yeah, it's unrelated. intel_allocate_framebuffer calls disable_reuse, so > there's no need to call it from these two other places. I'll split that > change out into a separate patch with separate comment. > >> Unrelated whitespace. > > There are a bunch of whitespace fixups; should I pull those into a > separate patch or just leave them scattered in the first patch to change > a file? One patch at the front is fine with me.
Attachment:
pgp7pquuJRdl7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
