On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:33:43 +0100, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:32:25AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: >> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> >> Tbh I don't see any reason for handling pwrite/pread support for stolen >> mem backed objects. I'll leave these two patches here (plus the prep one >> to differentiate between stolen and dma_bufs) for now until a user pops > > The problem is that constitutes a change in ABI, so I was trying to make > sure stolen buffer objects were first class from day one. The only > saving grace is that userspace can only access the stolen object for > fbcon, but it is still available...
Hm, I've forgotten that userspace can get at the fbcon. Does it really do that? The problem I see here is untested code and no sane way to test it. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
