Re: [0/4] video-UDLFB: Adjustments for five function implementations
>> * Do you find a Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this use >> case? > > Yes, Interesting … > there is more information available currently in the driver and > I see no real improvement in removing it. > >> * Are you looking for any more clarification? > > I will not apply any of such patches for now. The only exception > being drivers that support hardware that can have only one instance > in the system … Thanks for your feedback. > and the patch needs to be reviewed by a someone else than the author). I am curious if this will ever happen again for my update suggestions in such a software area. Regards, Markus ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [0/4] video-UDLFB: Adjustments for five function implementations
On Friday, December 29, 2017 07:10:00 PM SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in two functions > > > > This patch removes the information about the device for which the > > allocation fails. > > * Do you find a Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this use case? Yes, there is more information available currently in the driver and I see no real improvement in removing it. > * Are you looking for any more clarification? I will not apply any of such patches for now. The only exception being drivers that support hardware that can have only one instance in the system (but it needs to be explicitly stated in the patch description and the patch needs to be reviewed by a someone else than the author). Best regards, -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [0/4] video-UDLFB: Adjustments for five function implementations
>> Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in two functions > > This patch removes the information about the device for which the allocation > fails. * Do you find a Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this use case? * Are you looking for any more clarification? >> Improve a size determination in dlfb_alloc_urb_list() > > Patch queued for 4.16, thanks. Thanks for your acceptance of other change possibilities. Regards, Markus ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
