RJ An IOCTL shouldn't have any more overhead than reading or writing to a
RJ file...
Make this a hundred cycles (and you're probably flushing some caches
somewhere). That's 0.1 us on a 1GHz CPU.
The machine I'm typing this on can do 2 milllion short thin lines per
second. That's 0.5 us per
understand how that was a rhetorical question. My sense of humor is
very blunt, and I don't get the punchline.
From: Juliusz Chroboczek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More details about a kernel module (by GPfault)
Date: 14 Oct 2003 11:41:59 +0200
RJ
specific.
I don't understand how that was a rhetorical question. My sense of humor is
very blunt, and I don't get the punchline.
From: Juliusz Chroboczek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More details about a kernel module (by GPfault)
Date
RJ Just add some IOCTL's for hardware acceleration).
How much overhead does an ioctl involve ? (Rhethorical question.)
Juliusz
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:16 am, Raymond Jennings wrote:
I hope you guys at XFree86 look into this. I haven't the foggiest idea how
you would do it, as I'm a newbie. I do believe that a kernel modulized DDX
layer would be of great benefit to X.
Have
I strongly recommend a kernel module be used instead of DDX. And for the
following reasons:
1. X doesn't need to access /dev/mem or /dev/port, or have any sort of
special super-user privileges.
2. Kernel modules stay locked in RAM and run faster.
3. Other programs can use graphics modes
