On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:46:03 +0100
Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi Pekka,
>
> On 24 March 2017 at 10:30, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:56:55 +
> > Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> On 22 March 2017 at 14:35, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >> > I think this patch could use a better explana
Hi Pekka,
On 24 March 2017 at 10:30, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:56:55 +
> Daniel Stone wrote:
>> On 22 March 2017 at 14:35, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> > I think this patch could use a better explanation, particularly if all
>> > my speculations were in fact incorrect. ;-)
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:56:55 +
Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 22 March 2017 at 14:35, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 23:05:25 +
> > Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> Clean up some ambiguity around current/next: current could previously
> >> have referred to a buffer which was
Hi,
On 22 March 2017 at 14:35, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 23:05:25 +
> Daniel Stone wrote:
>> Clean up some ambiguity around current/next: current could previously
>> have referred to a buffer which was being displayed, or the last buffer
>> being displayed whilst we waited
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 23:05:25 +
Daniel Stone wrote:
> Clean up some ambiguity around current/next: current could previously
> have referred to a buffer which was being displayed, or the last buffer
> being displayed whilst we waited for a configuration we'd requested to
> take effect.
>
> Int
Clean up some ambiguity around current/next: current could previously
have referred to a buffer which was being displayed, or the last buffer
being displayed whilst we waited for a configuration we'd requested to
take effect.
Introduce a new variable, fb_last, which exclusively holds the latter
ca
