http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10191
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://bugs.edge.launchpad.|https://bugs.launchpad.net/b
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10191
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL|
On Sat, 2007-10-06 at 08:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> We do have a rule about "no regressions", so I think we'll have to do the
> revert, but it would be nice to hear what the consequences for the revert
> is for the affected hardware and new X.org..
No regressions is more important than
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
> I guess, this will break my graphics, no?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/20/447
Can you try it?
We do have a rule about "no regressions", so I think we'll have to do the
revert, but it would be nice to hear what the consequences for the revert
is for th
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11499
--- Comment #10 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-10-05 08:28 PST ---
Created an attachment (id=11908)
--> (http://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=11908&action=view)
patch to use writemask in tex instruction
Does the attached patch
I've got a new-ish system that I've been trying to get working that's
very close; the only things left are networking (which the latest e1000
driver from sf.net might fix) and graphics.
The system is a DG33TL micro ATX motherboard with a 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo
processor and 2GB RAM. The graphics ada
