On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 15:46, Keith Whitwell wrote: > So, instead of DRM_OS_COPYFROMUSR_NC, maybe DRM_COPY_FROM_USER_UNCHECKED > might be clearer. > > Similarly, DRM_OS_KRNFROMUSR is pretty cryptic -- maybe > DRM_COPY_FROM_USER_IOCTL or something? > > Oh, and I just found DRM_OS_FETCHU_32_NC -- that's ugly... I > > How about: > > DRM_OS_COPYFROMUSR_NC > -- DRM_COPY_FROM_USER_UNCHECKED > DRM_OS_COPYFROMUSR -- DRM_COPY_FROM_USER > DRM_OS_KRNFROMUSR -- DRM_COPY_FROM_USER_IOCTL > DRM_OS_FETCHU_32_NC -- DRM_GET_USER_UNCHECKED > > and so on.
Yeah, I thought the _NCs were ugly when I named them. I did that plus DRM_OS_IOCTL -> DRM_IOCTL_ARGS, DRM_OS_DELAY->DRM_OS_UDELAY, and killed DRM_OS_RETURN (not used in the os-independent code anyway). Do you know what's up with the i810 code in linux? It's complaining about not enough args to do_munmap_Rsmp_8fdbbff9. It would be nice to complete the whole drm building on Linux. -- Eric Anholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~eanholt/dri/ ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Bringing you mounds of caffeinated joy. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
