On 02/20/2017 11:22 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> So I think we need a quick revert of this commit or a quick stable
>> follow-up to unbreak things on our side.
> I'd much prefer we just register control nodes for vmwgfx only, with a
> commi
On 02/21/2017 06:34 AM, David Airlie wrote:
>> No.
>>
>> IMO Not fixing this immediately through stable is out of the question.
>> The deal is that we don't break userspace.
>> Having said that, I'm not against a long term vmwgfx-only solution. But
>> let's fix this now.
>>
>> Admittedly we missed
>
> No.
>
> IMO Not fixing this immediately through stable is out of the question.
> The deal is that we don't break userspace.
> Having said that, I'm not against a long term vmwgfx-only solution. But
> let's fix this now.
>
> Admittedly we missed testing this but you got to understand that no
No.
IMO Not fixing this immediately through stable is out of the question.
The deal is that we don't break userspace.
Having said that, I'm not against a long term vmwgfx-only solution. But
let's fix this now.
Admittedly we missed testing this but you got to understand that not all
developer team
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> So I think we need a quick revert of this commit or a quick stable
> follow-up to unbreak things on our side.
I'd much prefer we just register control nodes for vmwgfx only, with a
commit message explaining in detail what exactly your con
So I think we need a quick revert of this commit or a quick stable
follow-up to unbreak things on our side.
/Thomas
On 02/19/2017 03:54 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This patch breaks the vmwgfx resolutionKMS daemon which opens a control
> node to tell DRM about the monitor layout...
>
>
6 matches
Mail list logo
