On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 07:35, Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:12:07 +0100, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote: > >> I think that race is air-tight with your patch to rework the reset code >> already. But better safe than sorry. And as I've said a good cleanup >> anyway. > > Sounds good. I like clearer code, especially when it doesn't cost > performance. I think I'd like my version in -fixes so that we don't > change anything with -next; no reason to have two slightly different > versions out there in case one (or the other) is broken?
Having the one-liner fix as separate patch makes backporting to 3.2 simpler. But I don't care much, so if you amend your commit to mention the small fix hidden in the cleanup and add a note that the fix needs to go to 3.2-stable that's fine by me, too. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch - +41 (0) 79 364 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
