Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 9/17/07, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking about this a little more and wonder if we can get
>> away with slightly relaxed semantics compared to NO_MOVE in some cases
>> at least.
>>
>> In the current SWZ branch, we're pre-validating one or
On 9/17/07, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've been thinking about this a little more and wonder if we can get
> away with slightly relaxed semantics compared to NO_MOVE in some cases
> at least.
>
> In the current SWZ branch, we're pre-validating one or two buffers (VB,
> indirect
