Am Sonntag, 29. September 2002 22:57 schrieb Felix Kühling:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:47:47 +0200
>
> Felix Kühling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 13:22:44 -0700
> >
> > Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > CVSROOT: /cvsroot/dri
> > > Module name: xc
> > > Repository: xc/xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/radeon/
> > > Changes by: keithw@usw-pr-cvs1. 02/09/29 13:22:44
> > >
> > > Log message:
> > > irqwait patch from felix
> > >
> > > Modified files:
> > > xc/xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/radeon/:
> > > radeon_context.c radeon_context.h radeon_ioctl.c
> > >
> > > Revision Changes Path
> > > 1.19 +1 -0
> > > xc/xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/radeon/radeon_context.c 1.15 +1 -0
> > > xc/xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/radeon/radeon_context.h 1.27 +54
> > > -49 xc/xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/radeon/radeon_ioctl.c
> >
> > Thanks for applying. However, this was yesterday's patch ;-). Just cvs
> > updated my tree and made a patch of my NEW waiting code against the
> > latest trunk. See "[patch] smart irq/busy wait in
> > radeonWaitForFrameCompletion" on dri-devel. I just realized that I
> > forgot to include radeon_context.[ch] in the patch posted with that
> > mail. :-| This one is complete.
>
> Oops, forgot one debug message. Could you remove
> fprintf (stderr, "Waited %d.\r", wait);
> from radeon_ioctl.c line 692 manually? I don't want to spam the list
> with patches.
Is r100/r200 a completely different thing?
If not why not a patch against both?
Then the testing audience should be much "wider".
Thanks,
Dieter
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
