On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:51:23 -0400 Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 03:24 +0300, Aapo Tahkola wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:48:11 -0400 > > Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 18:05 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 01:19 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > > > > > Disagree also about axing the comment - its useful to know why > > > > > something > > > > > is being done. > > > > > > > > Wait, the comment says "TODO: Remove this; we can't afford to let > > > > userspace control something that locks up the graphics card so easily." > > > > We're not removing the code being referred to, as far as I've heard, and > > > > "we can't afford" is contradictory to what we have agreed on for DRI > > > > policy (drivers can't escalate privelege, but can hang the machine). > > > > > > When did this 'agreement' occur? I can't remember agreeing to that. That > > > we may not be able to prevent all such cases doesn't mean we shouldn't > > > prevent the ones we can. > > > > Without VPU recovery, it is very likely that the prices would be too high > > to stand. > > I really mean 'the ones we can'. All I'm saying is that we should try to > prevent it whenever reasonably possible and that the fact that it may > not always be is IMHO a bad excuse for never trying. Im looking at the whole picture here. I dont really think we have enough manpower and interest of finishing this kind of boring task using the most difficult approach available. -- Aapo Tahkola ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
