On 13/07/2023 16:09, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
Hi
Am 13.07.23 um 16:41 schrieb Sean Paul:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:04 AM Uwe Kleine-König
wrote:
hello Sean,
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This
On 20/02/2023 10:01, Christian König wrote:
Am 20.02.23 um 10:55 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin:
Hi,
On 14/02/2023 13:59, Christian König wrote:
Am 14.02.23 um 13:50 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
Currently drm_gem_handle_create_tail exposes the handle to userspace
before
Hi,
On 14/02/2023 13:59, Christian König wrote:
Am 14.02.23 um 13:50 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
Currently drm_gem_handle_create_tail exposes the handle to userspace
before the buffer object constructions is complete. This allowing
of working against a partially
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
Currently drm_gem_handle_create_tail exposes the handle to userspace
before the buffer object constructions is complete. This allowing
of working against a partially constructed object, which may also be in
the process of having its creation fail, can have a range
Hi,
On 12/07/2022 06:00, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 04:31:49PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 10:26:14AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Hi i915 and nouveau maintainers,
any chance I could get some help to remove the remaining direct
driver calls
try to make
the diffs smaller or not. It doesn't matter hugely really, all I have is
a vague and uncertain "maybe it makes backporting of something, someday
easier". So for i915 it is good either way.
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin # i915 bits only
Regards,
Tvrtko
On 20/05/2021 09:35, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 19/05/2021 19:23, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:16 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
On 18/05/2021 10:40, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 18/05/2021 10:16, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 10:09, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
I
On 19/05/2021 19:23, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:16 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
On 18/05/2021 10:40, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 18/05/2021 10:16, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 10:09, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
I was just wondering if stat(2) and a chrdev
On 18/05/2021 10:40, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 18/05/2021 10:16, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 10:09, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
I was just wondering if stat(2) and a chrdev major check would be a
solid criteria to more efficiently (compared to parsing the text
content) detect
On 18/05/2021 10:16, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 10:09, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
I was just wondering if stat(2) and a chrdev major check would be a
solid criteria to more efficiently (compared to parsing the text
content) detect drm files while walking procfs.
Maybe I'm
On 17/05/2021 20:03, Simon Ser wrote:
On Monday, May 17th, 2021 at 8:16 PM, Nieto, David M
wrote:
Btw is DRM_MAJOR 226 consider uapi? I don't see it in uapi headers.
It's not in the headers, but it's de facto uAPI, as seen in libdrm:
> git grep 226
xf86drm.c
99:#define
driver_features = DRIVER_GEM,
.release = mock_device_release,
-
- .gem_close_object = i915_gem_close_object,
- .gem_free_object_unlocked = i915_gem_free_object,
};
static void release_dev(struct device *dev)
Looks obviously fine.
12 matches
Mail list logo
