This is basically the same issue as with patch #3... it's not so clear
what the best policy actually is.
Cheers,
Nicolai
On 05.05.19 01:24, Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> diff --git a/src/util/u_dynarray.h b/src/util/u_dynarray.h
>>> index b30fd7b1154..f6a81609dbe 100644
>>>
Hi,
> > diff --git a/src/util/u_dynarray.h b/src/util/u_dynarray.h
> > index b30fd7b1154..f6a81609dbe 100644
> > --- a/src/util/u_dynarray.h
> > +++ b/src/util/u_dynarray.h
> > @@ -85,20 +85,22 @@ util_dynarray_ensure_cap(struct util_dynarray *buf,
> > unsigned newcap)
> >
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 3:25 PM Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
>
> From: Nicolai Hähnle
>
> We're not very good at handling out-of-memory conditions in general, but
> this change at least gives the caller the option of handling it.
>
> This happens to fix an error in out-of-memory handling in i965, which
From: Nicolai Hähnle
We're not very good at handling out-of-memory conditions in general, but
this change at least gives the caller the option of handling it.
This happens to fix an error in out-of-memory handling in i965, which has
the following code in brw_bufmgr.c:
node =
