On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Rodrigo Vivi (2017-08-10 15:50:43)
>> I'm not sure if this is really the case and I don't believe
>> this is the real fix for the bug mentioned here, but since
>> I don't see a reliable path when mst_port is
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 19:45 +0200, Stefan Assmann wrote:
> On 2017-08-10 07:50, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this is really the case and I don't believe
> > this is the real fix for the bug mentioned here, but since
> > I don't see a reliable path when mst_port is set and when
> >
On 2017-08-10 07:50, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is really the case and I don't believe
> this is the real fix for the bug mentioned here, but since
> I don't see a reliable path when mst_port is set and when
> mode_valid is requested I believe it is worth to have this
> protection
Quoting Rodrigo Vivi (2017-08-10 15:50:43)
> I'm not sure if this is really the case and I don't believe
> this is the real fix for the bug mentioned here, but since
> I don't see a reliable path when mst_port is set and when
> mode_valid is requested I believe it is worth to have this
>
I'm not sure if this is really the case and I don't believe
this is the real fix for the bug mentioned here, but since
I don't see a reliable path when mst_port is set and when
mode_valid is requested I believe it is worth to have this
protection here.
Bugzilla: