Le vendredi 25 mars 2011 à 16:44 +0100, Peter Stuge a écrit :
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > You won't have any trouble finding plenty of examples of newcomers
> > having a better experience, as most of them thankfully don't come in
> > with such a bad attitude and conduct.
>
> To a bystander it would
Hello all,
I am using drm_intel to access the HW. I would like to know if there is any way
to know if my application frees all the bos I used. I would like to be sure I
cleanly freed my resources and no bo is still referenced.
Is there any tool in the memory allocation part of drm_intel to do th
that?
Thanks!
Ben
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20110325/f0087d92/attachment.html>
On 03/24/2011 05:21 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> When a page in the TTM pool is being moved back and forth and also changes
>>> the caching model, what happens on the free part? Is the original caching
>>> state put back on it? Say I allocated a DMA32 page (GFP_DMA32), and move it
>>> to an
Hi Florian,
>
>> So why should this be a common library? Most kernel code doesn't need
>> it. Or is there a serious need for video input to parse EDIDs?
>
> It's true that most kernel code does not need it as it is only useful for
> display output systems (and only the ones that can be connected
On 25/03/2011, at 10:55, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>> Like seriously you really think VFS locking rework wasn't under
>>> development or discussion when you merged it? I'm sure Al
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31892
Summary: Problems with nouveau on my HP laptop
Product: Drivers
Version: 2.5
Kernel Version: 2.6.38-Linus-07088-gb973a3b
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Tree: Mainline
Hi Gunnedi,
>> > Dave's point is that we can't ditch the existing code without
>> > introducing a lot of risk; it would be better to start a library-ized
>> > EDID codebase from the most complete one we have already, i.e. the DRM
>> > EDID code.
>
> Does the DRM EDID-parser also process blocks be
2011/3/25 Michel D?nzer :
> On Fre, 2011-03-25 at 17:21 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Like seriously you really think VFS locking rework wasn't under
>> >> development or
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> Like seriously you really think VFS locking rework wasn't under
>> development or discussion when you merged it? I'm sure Al would have
>> something to say about it considering the
Michel D?nzer wrote:
> You won't have any trouble finding plenty of examples of newcomers
> having a better experience, as most of them thankfully don't come in
> with such a bad attitude and conduct.
To a bystander it would seem that Ilija has great attitude and conduct.
//Peter
[ Removing Linus from CC, I doubt he's that interested in this anymore ]
On Fre, 2011-03-25 at 09:52 -0500, Ilija Hadzic wrote:
>
> * There is no way for an application to see the VBLANK events without
>crossing into the kernel. VBLANKs are interrupts from the hardware
>and only kernel
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33185
Marek Olšák changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33185
Marek Ol??k changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:01:14 -0400
> Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
>> > Oh, I wish this were actually the case. ?The last time we attempted such a
>> > thing we were blasted by Linus. ?It does
On 03/24/2011 05:21 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
When a page in the TTM pool is being moved back and forth and also changes
the caching model, what happens on the free part? Is the original caching
state put back on it? Say I allocated a DMA32 page (GFP_DMA32), and move it
to another pool for
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33185
--- Comment #15 from Wojciech Ryrych 2011-03-25 12:22:04 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Alright, I missed that info, sorry. I tried kwin just recently and I didn't
> see
> any crashes.
Hello again, Marek.
I’ve just tried out Desktop Eff
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33185
--- Comment #15 from Wojciech Ryrych 2011-03-25 12:22:04
PDT ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Alright, I missed that info, sorry. I tried kwin just recently and I didn't
> see
> any crashes.
Hello again, Marek.
I?ve just tried out Desktop Eff
2011/3/25 Ilija Hadzic :
>
> This thread turned into much more than what its scope is and I hoped I would
> stay out of the "fight" (especially after the vocabulary got very
> "liberal"). Yet, my code (as trivial as it is) has sparked up some old
> issues and seems to be referred to over and over a
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:01:14 -0400
> Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
>> > Oh, I wish this were actually the case. The last time we attempted such a
>> > thing we were blasted by Linus. It does
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:04:10 -0400
Jerome Glisse wrote:
> My feeling on that is that maybe too much code sharing accross gpu of
> different generation hurt more than it helps. I have got the feeling
> that some of the newer Intel asic share some of the bit of older one
> and that intel is focusin
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:04:10 -0400
Jerome Glisse wrote:
> My feeling on that is that maybe too much code sharing accross gpu of
> different generation hurt more than it helps. I have got the feeling
> that some of the newer Intel asic share some of the bit of older one
> and that intel is focusin
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:01:14 -0400
Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> > Oh, I wish this were actually the case. The last time we attempted such a
> > thing we were blasted by Linus. It does make me wonder at why we're even
> > bothering being in stagi
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:01:14 -0400
Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> > Oh, I wish this were actually the case. ?The last time we attempted such a
> > thing we were blasted by Linus. ?It does make me wonder at why we're even
> > bothering being in stagi
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> If you think this has anything to do with Intel's ability to break your
>> hardware
>> on every merge then you've got your wires crossed.
>
> No, it's about the fact that I expect t
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>> Like seriously you really think VFS locking rework wasn't under
>>> development or discussion when you merged it? I'm sur
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> On 25/03/2011, at 10:55, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
Like seriously you really think VFS locking rework wasn't under
>>>
This thread turned into much more than what its scope is and I hoped I
would stay out of the "fight" (especially after the vocabulary got very
"liberal"). Yet, my code (as trivial as it is) has sparked up some old
issues and seems to be referred to over and over again, so I want to make
a few
On 25 March 2011 04:21, Dave Airlie wrote:
> I'm also aware we never get enough testing coverage before stuff hits
> your tree, we'd need 1000s of testers to run drm-next and we just
> don't have that variation. So yes when new features hit -rc1 with the
> drm they nearly always cause regressions,
On Fre, 2011-03-25 at 17:51 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> 2011/3/25 Michel D?nzer :
> > On Fre, 2011-03-25 at 17:21 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Torvalds
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dave Airlie
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Like se
Michel Dänzer wrote:
> You won't have any trouble finding plenty of examples of newcomers
> having a better experience, as most of them thankfully don't come in
> with such a bad attitude and conduct.
To a bystander it would seem that Ilija has great attitude and conduct.
//Peter
___
On Fre, 2011-03-25 at 17:21 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >>
> >> Like seriously you really think VFS locking rework wasn't under
> >> development or discussion when you merged it? I
2011/3/25 Ilija Hadzic :
>
> This thread turned into much more than what its scope is and I hoped I would
> stay out of the "fight" (especially after the vocabulary got very
> "liberal"). Yet, my code (as trivial as it is) has sparked up some old
> issues and seems to be referred to over and over a
[ Removing Linus from CC, I doubt he's that interested in this anymore ]
On Fre, 2011-03-25 at 09:52 -0500, Ilija Hadzic wrote:
>
> * There is no way for an application to see the VBLANK events without
>crossing into the kernel. VBLANKs are interrupts from the hardware
>and only kernel
Hi Florian,
>
>> So why should this be a common library? Most kernel code doesn't need
>> it. Or is there a serious need for video input to parse EDIDs?
>
> It's true that most kernel code does not need it as it is only useful for
> display output systems (and only the ones that can be connected
On 25 March 2011 04:21, Dave Airlie wrote:
> I'm also aware we never get enough testing coverage before stuff hits
> your tree, we'd need 1000s of testers to run drm-next and we just
> don't have that variation. So yes when new features hit -rc1 with the
> drm they nearly always cause regressions,
This thread turned into much more than what its scope is and I hoped I
would stay out of the "fight" (especially after the vocabulary got very
"liberal"). Yet, my code (as trivial as it is) has sparked up some old
issues and seems to be referred to over and over again, so I want to make
a few
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35658
Yann Le Doaré changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35658
Yann Le Doar? changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35658
Summary: Building r*00 driver fails : undefined reference to
`radeon_gem_get_kernel_name'
Product: Mesa
Version: 7.10
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux (All)
Status:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35658
Summary: Building r*00 driver fails : undefined reference to
`radeon_gem_get_kernel_name'
Product: Mesa
Version: 7.10
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux (All)
Status:
Hi Gunnedi,
>> > Dave's point is that we can't ditch the existing code without
>> > introducing a lot of risk; it would be better to start a library-ized
>> > EDID codebase from the most complete one we have already, i.e. the DRM
>> > EDID code.
>
> Does the DRM EDID-parser also process blocks be
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Ilija Hadzic
> wrote:
>>
>> OK, I'll update libdrm side to match this change and send the patch later
>> today
>
> Quite frankly, this whole discussion is a clear example of why DRM has
> been problematic.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31875
Jakob Bornecrantz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34598
Jakob Bornecrantz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31875
Jakob Bornecrantz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34598
Jakob Bornecrantz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
On 25/03/2011, at 10:55, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>> Like seriously you really think VFS locking rework wasn't under
>>> development or discussion when you merged it? I'm sure Al
On Fre, 2011-03-25 at 17:51 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> 2011/3/25 Michel Dänzer :
> > On Fre, 2011-03-25 at 17:21 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Torvalds
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Like seriously
2011/3/25 Michel Dänzer :
> On Fre, 2011-03-25 at 17:21 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Like seriously you really think VFS locking rework wasn't under
>> >> development or
On Fre, 2011-03-25 at 17:21 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >>
> >> Like seriously you really think VFS locking rework wasn't under
> >> development or discussion when you merged it? I
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> Like seriously you really think VFS locking rework wasn't under
>> development or discussion when you merged it? I'm sure Al would have
>> something to say about it considering the
52 matches
Mail list logo
