Keith Packard <[email protected]> writes:

> Eric Anholt <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> This change appears to be unrelated, and possibly harmful (if X has
>> dropped the last ref to the BO, but it's still the scanout buffer, a new
>> allocation would now reuse the BO and scribble on scanout until the next
>> modeset happens).
>
> Yeah, it's unrelated. intel_allocate_framebuffer calls disable_reuse, so
> there's no need to call it from these two other places. I'll split that
> change out into a separate patch with separate comment.
>
>> Unrelated whitespace.
>
> There are a bunch of whitespace fixups; should I pull those into a
> separate patch or just leave them scattered in the first patch to change
> a file?

One patch at the front is fine with me.

Attachment: pgpqjvDTUOs5x.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

Reply via email to