On 2018-01-17 06:35 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Andres Rodriguez <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2018-01-17 08:01 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 04.01.2018 18:37, Andres Rodriguez wrote:
On 2018-01-04 12:33 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
Is the renaming necessary? It looks like everything would be fine if
we used the "fence" name for semaphores.
The rename was requested by nha. We could keep going with the fences
name. Or we could do the whole rename afterwards. I'm fine with either
approach.
Still digging through emails, but Marek pointed this out specifically.
It's been a while, but this may have been a misunderstanding. Perhaps you
were referring to my mail to your first series about semaphores ("Add
support for GL_EXT_semaphore") in early November. What I meant to request is
that we use the same object for both fences and semaphores, and that object
would have behavior closer to semaphores (since they're kind of a superset
in terms of behavior). I didn't mean to say that they should necessarily be
renamed. My apologies for not making that clear.
So I was actually expecting to keep the fence name, there's some benefit
to having less churn.
That works for me. Also, welcome back :)
Consider this patch dropped and s/semaphore/fence for the rest of the
series.
I quickly skimmed through the series and it looks good to me.
There are also some patches on the piglit list btw. In case you might
have comments on those as well.
Regards,
Andres
Marek
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
