On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Marc Aurele La France wrote:
Now, it's not my purpose here to get into these motivations, but
reworking these structures would have consequences, one of which I am
unsure how to deal with. At minimum, what I need to do is ...
a) prevent drivers compiled with the current
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, David Dawes wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:49:49AM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, David Dawes wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:15AM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote:
Our loader scheme has been, and is, reasonably good at dealing with
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, David Dawes wrote:
However, I think it's better to control module loading from the module
public headers, thus incorporating interface version checking with the
interface definition and avoiding the need to resort to tricks like this.
Alright, that's what I'll do then:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, David Dawes wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:15AM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote:
Our loader scheme has been, and is, reasonably good at dealing with
incompatibilities between modules and the core binary. But it is not so
good with ensuring modules are compatible
Marc, I don't have any good ideas to suggest to solve this versioning
problem, but FWIW the NVIDIA X driver does not use the vbe module.
Thanks,
- Andy
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Marc Aurele La France wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, David Dawes wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:15AM -0600, Marc
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:49:49AM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, David Dawes wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:15AM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote:
Our loader scheme has been, and is, reasonably good at dealing with
incompatibilities between modules and the core
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Andy Ritger wrote:
Marc, I don't have any good ideas to suggest to solve this versioning
problem, but FWIW the NVIDIA X driver does not use the vbe module.
True. And your primary nemesis, ATI, wouldn't be affected by this particular
change either.
I'm thinking in more
Hi.
I've something here I'd like to discuss.
Our loader scheme has been, and is, reasonably good at dealing with
incompatibilities between modules and the core binary. But it is not so good
with ensuring modules are compatible with each other.
As a case in point, I am now faced with strong
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:15AM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote:
Hi.
I've something here I'd like to discuss.
Our loader scheme has been, and is, reasonably good at dealing with
incompatibilities between modules and the core binary. But it is not so
good with ensuring modules are
