Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-10 Thread Michel Dänzer
First of all, thanks for all the suggestions I've received in this thread. New patch up at http://penguinppc.org/~daenzer/DRI/drm-nopage.diff; does this look acceptable to those who are going to do merges between the trees? :) -- Earthling Michel Dnzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI

Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-01 Thread Michel Dänzer
On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 19:21, Jon Smirl wrote: The headers for nopageXX calls just changed. struct page * (*nopage)(struct vm_area_struct * area, unsigned long address, int unused); changed to: struct page * (*nopage)(struct vm_area_struct * area, unsigned long address, int *type); The

Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-01 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 13:03, Michel Dnzer wrote: How does this patch look? ugly. I find using #defines for function arguments ugly beyond belief and makes it really hard to look through code. I 10x rather have an ifdef in the function prototype (which then for the mainstream kernel drm can be

Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-01 Thread Michel Dänzer
On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 13:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 13:03, Michel Dnzer wrote: How does this patch look? ugly. I find using #defines for function arguments ugly beyond belief and makes it really hard to look through code. I 10x rather have an ifdef in the

Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-01 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 01:03:38PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: No, this is Linux specific. How does this patch look? Okay, you did something weird with nopage args, but I thought I did the equivalent of this in the original patch? -- wli

Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-01 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 01:23:40PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: How does this patch look? ugly. I find using #defines for function arguments ugly beyond belief and makes it really hard to look through code. I 10x rather have an ifdef in the function prototype (which then for the

Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-01 Thread Michel Dänzer
On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 14:33, William Lee Irwin III wrote: On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 01:03:38PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: No, this is Linux specific. How does this patch look? Okay, you did something weird with nopage args, but I thought I did the equivalent of this in the original patch?

Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-01 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 14:33, William Lee Irwin III wrote: Okay, you did something weird with nopage args, but I thought I did the equivalent of this in the original patch? On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 02:50:30PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: This is about the canonical DRM code in the DRI tree. I'm

Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-01 Thread Michel Dänzer
On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 13:28, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 01:23:40PM +0100, Michel Dnzer wrote: I find using #defines for function arguments ugly beyond belief and makes it really hard to look through code. I 10x rather have an ifdef in the function prototype

Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-01 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 03:27:59PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: Does this look better? Maybe a macro (or a typedef?) for the type of the last argument would still be a good idea? Or is there yet a better way? I'm going to regret suggesting this, but how about: (a) a typedef for the arg itself

Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-01 Thread Alan Cox
On Iau, 2004-01-01 at 13:50, Michel Dnzer wrote: Okay, you did something weird with nopage args, but I thought I did the equivalent of this in the original patch? This is about the canonical DRM code in the DRI tree. 99.9% of people run the DRM code in the kernel tree, so definitions of

Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-01 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Michel Dänzer wrote: well the advantage is that the ifdefs can just go away in kernel trees of specific versions... (eg unifdef it) Does this look better? Maybe a macro (or a typedef?) for the type of the last argument would still be a good idea? Or is there yet a

Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-01 Thread Nigel Cunningham
On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 09:19, Linus Torvalds wrote: In contrast, full-file interfaces for different kernel versions are a _lot_ easier to merge and keep track of. They may look like duplication, but the advantages are legion. You don't mix different OS's and different versions together, and

Re: [Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2004-01-01 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Nigel Cunningham wrote: Of course there are also advantages to _not_ using the file-per-kernel version scheme. No there isn't. The thing is, you should keep those file-per-OS files as small as possible, and only contain the things that are literally different.

[Dri-devel] 2.6 kernel change in nopage

2003-12-31 Thread Jon Smirl
The headers for nopageXX calls just changed. struct page * (*nopage)(struct vm_area_struct * area, unsigned long address, int unused); changed to: struct page * (*nopage)(struct vm_area_struct * area, unsigned long address, int *type); The DRM drivers need to be adjusted. This probably impacts