On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:41:03 +0100, Thomas Hellstr�m
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> /* For now the mapping works by using a fixed size defined
> * in the SAREA header
> */
> if (sizeof(XF86DRISAREARec)+sizeof(VIASAREAPriv) > SAREA_MAX) {
> xf86DrvMsg(pScrn->scrnIndex, X_ERROR,
> "Data does not fit in SAREA\n");
> return FALSE;
> }
> pDRIInfo->SAREASize = SAREA_MAX;
>
> So if locks are going to be squeezed in somewhere I'd either have to fit
> them in the XF86DRISAREARec or put them into every driver's private area.
You can't put them into XF86DRISAREARec because of code like this:
drmInfo.sarea_priv_offset = sizeof(drm_sarea_t);
drm_sarea_t is the same structure as XF86DRISAREARec.
Are the locks generic enough that all hardware needs them?
You can extend VIASAREAPriv (drm_via_sarea_t) without messing up the
above check. drm_via_sarea_t is much smaller than SAREA_MAX.
You will still need to negotiate an interface version since some
servers will know about the extended locks and others won't. You'll
have to revert to the big lock if all of the clients don't know about
the new lock scheme.
--
Jon Smirl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idU88&alloc_id065&op=click
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
