On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:01:57PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8 December 2015 at 08:49, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > We want this for consistency with existing page_flip semantics.
> >
> > Since this spurred quite a discussion on IRC also document why we
> > reject even generation when
Hi,
On 8 December 2015 at 08:49, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We want this for consistency with existing page_flip semantics.
>
> Since this spurred quite a discussion on IRC also document why we
> reject even generation when the pipe is off: It's not that it's hard
> to implement, but userspace has a
We want this for consistency with existing page_flip semantics.
Since this spurred quite a discussion on IRC also document why we
reject even generation when the pipe is off: It's not that it's hard
to implement, but userspace has a track recording proofing that it's
way too easy to accidentally
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We want this for consistency with existing page_flip semantics.
>
> Since this spurred quite a discussion on IRC also document why we
> reject even generation when the pipe is off: It's not that it's hard
event generation?
> to implement,
