X-Git-Url: https://git.notmuchmail.org/git?a=blobdiff_plain;f=src%2Fexa%2Fcorrected_rectangles.mdwn;h=d58696de9ba6a40226da0568829bacb92d60cd36;hb=5c014fe14d7a114dc525711d3236feb10f27177f;hp=6b13fea0820f1ef9a270f9ebd53cf71a022fb304;hpb=b96048fb57858c3c9323e20e86ce6a36a69fef73;p=cworth.org

diff --git a/src/exa/corrected_rectangles.mdwn b/src/exa/corrected_rectangles.mdwn
index 6b13fea..d58696d 100644
--- a/src/exa/corrected_rectangles.mdwn
+++ b/src/exa/corrected_rectangles.mdwn
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
-[[meta title="Correcting bugs in the rectangles test"]]
+[[!meta title="Correcting bugs in the rectangles test"]]
 
-[[tag cairo exa performance xorg]]
+[[!tag cairo exa performance xorg]]
 
-Owen Taylor was kind enough to take a close look at my [[recent
+Owen Taylor was kind enough to take a close look at my [[!recent
 post|understanding_rectangles]] comparing the performance of EXA and
 NoAccel rectangle fills on an r100. He was also careful enough to
 notice that the results looked really fishy.
@@ -87,9 +87,9 @@ returning consistent numbers from one run to the next, though. And the
 results do appear to have the correct trend as can be seen from these
 two graphs showing the measured fill rates:
 
-[[img fill-rates-cairo-perf.png]]
+[[!img fill-rates-cairo-perf.png]]
 
-[[img fill-rates-x11perf.png]]
+[[!img fill-rates-x11perf.png]]
 
 But again, notice from the Y-axis values of the cairo-perf plot that
 the numbers are just plain too large to be believed.