On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:27:28PM +0100, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> On 22/04/16 13:59, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 05:01:31PM +0100, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> >>It seems we don't have a test verifying events with atomic commits
> >>yet. Here is a first step.
> >>
> >>Cc:
Op 21-04-16 om 19:43 schreef Lionel Landwerlin:
> It seems we don't have a test verifying events with atomic commits
> yet. Here is a first step.
>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst
> Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin
> ---
>
On 22/04/16 13:59, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 05:01:31PM +0100, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
It seems we don't have a test verifying events with atomic commits
yet. Here is a first step.
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst
Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 05:01:31PM +0100, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> It seems we don't have a test verifying events with atomic commits
> yet. Here is a first step.
>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst
> Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin
It seems we don't have a test verifying events with atomic commits
yet. Here is a first step.
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst
Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin
---
tests/kms_atomic.c | 149
It seems we don't have a test verifying events with atomic commits
yet. Here is a first step.
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst
Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin
---
tests/kms_atomic.c | 137