[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] Fix pitchAlignMask on i915
mattst88 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 18 10:00:25 PDT 2010
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Carl Worth <cworth at cworth.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:11:28 -0400, Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>> > Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
>> > This won't break anything, it'll just waste a few bytes of memory due to
>> > a too big alignment. So not really 2.11 material.
>> Then again, this won't break anything, it'll just save a few bytes, so
>> it could be 2.11 material. :)
> At this stage of the game, (two release candidates already posted for
> the 2.11 release), my primary concern is to avoid slipping in a
> last-minute regression that manages to slip past all of the testing
> we've done on previous versions.
> I'm still happy to accept bug fixes. (They also have a non-zero risk of
> causing a regressions, but they're at least fixing a bug at the same
> time so the net effect is generally to reduce the bugginess of the
> release.) But I agree with Daniel that changes that are primarily code
> cleanups should be delayed until after the 2.11 release.
Whether it gets in 2.11 or not doesn't matter to me. I was just being
obnoxious by using the same logic to come to the opposite conclusion.
> That said, we do appreciate these contributions! I've got both changes
> committed to a branch named "after-2.11" in my local repository which
> will be easy to merge after the release. Please feel free to ping me if
> you don't see me merge it quickly after.
> PS. What's the purpose of the CC: lines added to the commit-message
> portion of the email body? I understand the significance of actually
> adding my address to the CC: line of the email itself, and that's
> effective. But putting these into the commit message just looks like
> noise in our code history. So I've removed those after committing. Did
> some tool add those there or was that done manually?
No, I just did it to make sure relevant people see the patch. I didn't
know I wasn't supposed to do that. I won't from now on.
> Also, there was a "v2. ..." note in the second commit. Such a note is
> useful for someone like me reviewing the patch and deciding whether to
> commit it, but again, is not useful as a part of the permanent commit
Sure, of course. (I did it because I see lots of people doing things
like this, checkout drm-radeon-testing)
Thanks for the tips!
More information about the Intel-gfx