Re: First DRI uber-benchmark

[Alan C. <al...@lx...>]

On Sul, 2004-08-22 at 13:11, Dave Airlie wrote:
> there should be no regression between them, I'd expect the currrnt CVS
> ones might in theory be slower than 2.6.7 but I haven't seen any
> regressions on the radeon modules while I've been doing the function table
> work, 2.6.7 is pretty close to CVS about 5 mths ago...
> 
> I don't think we have fixed any lockups or anything of that great interest
> in this time ..

At least on the fedora-test list the new Xorg CVS seems to be showing up
some i815/830 "works with 2.6.8.1 but not 2.6.old" kernels.