On Thursday, 2018-03-22 15:28:49 +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On 22 March 2018 at 15:20, Derek Foreman wrote:
> > commit 03dd9a88b0be17ff0ce91e92f6902a9a85ba584a introduced per surface
> > queues, but the display_sync for swrast_commit_backbuffer remained on
> > the old
On 22 March 2018 at 15:20, Derek Foreman wrote:
> commit 03dd9a88b0be17ff0ce91e92f6902a9a85ba584a introduced per surface
> queues, but the display_sync for swrast_commit_backbuffer remained on
> the old queue. This is likely to break when dispatching the correct
> queue
commit 03dd9a88b0be17ff0ce91e92f6902a9a85ba584a introduced per surface
queues, but the display_sync for swrast_commit_backbuffer remained on
the old queue. This is likely to break when dispatching the correct
queue at the top of function (which can't dispatch the sync callback
we're waiting for).