Keith Packard wrote:
>On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 21:28 +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>
>
>
>>Keith, I think this makes sense too. I'm hopeful Thomas would agree.
>>
>>
>
>I'll wait and see what he thinks before pushing then.
>
>
It's perfectly OK with me.
/Thomas
>
>
>>>+/*
>>>+ * drm_bo_p
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 21:28 +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Keith, I think this makes sense too. I'm hopeful Thomas would agree.
I'll wait and see what he thinks before pushing then.
>
> > +/*
> > + * drm_bo_propose_flags:
> > + *
> > + * @bo: the buffer object getting new flags
> > + *
> > +
Keith Packard wrote:
> commit 32acf53eefa64cd41cc9bf45705b0825fc8a0eef
> Author: Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun Dec 16 20:16:50 2007 -0800
>
> Rename inappropriately named 'mask' fields to 'proposed_flags' instead.
>
> Flags pending validation were stored in a mislead
commit 32acf53eefa64cd41cc9bf45705b0825fc8a0eef
Author: Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun Dec 16 20:16:50 2007 -0800
Rename inappropriately named 'mask' fields to 'proposed_flags' instead.
Flags pending validation were stored in a misleadingly named field, 'mask'.
As '
