On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:56:37AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes: > > > Wouldn't smart_stop_tick be a slightly better choice as that gives us > > the time the client became idle? > > Yeah, that makes more semantic sense. Of course, in reality because > those two values are within one 'tick' of each other, it shouldn't have > a great effect. > > >> Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> > > Tested-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Do you want to send in a patch using smart_stop_tick? Or shall I update > the patch I already have?
I tested both. The difference, as could be expected, was in the noise. Either patch fixes the problem I encountered. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel