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@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to