[Dri-devel] Re: Only normal DRI and Mesa CVS access as developer, now?

2003-06-24 Thread Nicholas Wourms
Michel Dänzer wrote: On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 16:34, Keith Whitwell wrote: [SNIP] To XFree86? Well, that's another question. That sounds more negative than I wanted. Basically, after the drivers are living in Mesa cvs, we could well end up just submitting patches to XFree86 for the rest - but

[Dri-devel] Re: [PATCH] A bunch of libGL.so optimizations

2003-06-01 Thread Nicholas Wourms
Keith Whitwell wrote: [SNIP] Boy, this looks interesting. Unfortunately I'm about to leave on a week's holidays so I won't be able to properly read the patch or comment until I get back. I'm broadly in favour of applying this but would love to participate in the discussions that will surround

[Dri-devel] Re: [PATCH] A bunch of libGL.so optimizations

2003-06-01 Thread Nicholas Wourms
Keith Whitwell wrote: The patch does have a few issues. Firstly it doesn't apply cleanly to the current trunk so there'll be a bit of work wiggling it in. [SNIP] I noticed that, but I also noticed something else. It seems that trunk has some regressions [or lack of updating, as well the

[Dri-devel] Re: Update direct-rendering to current DRI CVS tree.

2003-03-30 Thread Nicholas Wourms
Dave Jones wrote: #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE = KERNEL_VERSION(2,4,2) #define down_write down #define up_write up #if can go, like it did in other parts of the patch. What will replace it? If you intend to keep the two projects in sync and easy to update, I'm afraid that it will call for