On 21 October 2015 at 22:44, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Emil Velikov
> wrote:
>> On 21 October 2015 at 21:33, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 19, 2015 02:54:56 PM Emil Velikov wrote:
Ping on these two trivial patches ?
-Emil
>>>
>>> Oh, so
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 21 October 2015 at 21:33, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
>> On Monday, October 19, 2015 02:54:56 PM Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> Ping on these two trivial patches ?
>>>
>>> -Emil
>>
>> Oh, sorry, I thought I'd sent R-bs for these...
>>
>> Both are
>> R
On 21 October 2015 at 21:33, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Monday, October 19, 2015 02:54:56 PM Emil Velikov wrote:
>> Ping on these two trivial patches ?
>>
>> -Emil
>
> Oh, sorry, I thought I'd sent R-bs for these...
>
> Both are
> Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke
Thanks Ken. I was wondering if peopl
On Monday, October 19, 2015 02:54:56 PM Emil Velikov wrote:
> Ping on these two trivial patches ?
>
> -Emil
Oh, sorry, I thought I'd sent R-bs for these...
Both are
Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Ping on these two trivial patches ?
-Emil
On 7 October 2015 at 12:38, Emil Velikov wrote:
> There is only one function that can be called, which is well known at
> compilation time.
>
> The abstraction used here seems unnecessary, so let's use a direct call
> to brw_stage_prog_data_free() when a
There is only one function that can be called, which is well known at
compilation time.
The abstraction used here seems unnecessary, so let's use a direct call
to brw_stage_prog_data_free() when appropriate, cut down the size of
struct brw_cache.
Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov
---
src/mesa/drivers
