On 6/10/07, Thomas Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
Anyone objections to pulling over the ttm interface ioctl changes?
These are going to be annoying no matter when I do it .. so I'd like
to get it out of the way..
Dave.
Dave,
can you give me a day or so to
Dave Airlie wrote:
cheers,
Kristian
Kristian,
This is OK with me. It will add an extra malloc / free for every
buffer
object creation / destruction,
but will make it easier to maintain in the future, (and we can get rid
of the padding for future expansion).
Exactly, I took
On 6/14/07, Thomas Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
cheers,
Kristian
Kristian,
This is OK with me. It will add an extra malloc / free for every
buffer
object creation / destruction,
but will make it easier to maintain in the future, (and we can get
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
On 6/14/07, Thomas Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
cheers,
Kristian
Kristian,
This is OK with me. It will add an extra malloc / free for every
buffer
object creation / destruction,
but will make it easier to maintain in the
On 6/14/07, Thomas Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
...
True. And if we bump libdrm major version, we can drop the hash table
and skip lists too. With DRI interface changes, I moved the hash
table implementation into libGL, the only place it's used.
Kristian
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
On 6/14/07, Thomas Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
...
True. And if we bump libdrm major version, we can drop the hash table
and skip lists too. With DRI interface changes, I moved the hash
table implementation into libGL, the
cheers,
Kristian
Kristian,
This is OK with me. It will add an extra malloc / free for every buffer
object creation / destruction,
but will make it easier to maintain in the future, (and we can get rid
of the padding for future expansion).
Exactly, I took out the pad fields in
Dave Airlie wrote:
Anyone objections to pulling over the ttm interface ioctl changes?
These are going to be annoying no matter when I do it .. so I'd like
to get it out of the way..
Dave.
OK, so I've pushed some changes, the most important of which are ioctl
arg support for tiled buffers,
On 6/12/07, Thomas Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
Anyone objections to pulling over the ttm interface ioctl changes?
These are going to be annoying no matter when I do it .. so I'd like
to get it out of the way..
Dave.
OK, so I've pushed some changes, the most
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
On 6/12/07, Thomas Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
Anyone objections to pulling over the ttm interface ioctl changes?
These are going to be annoying no matter when I do it .. so I'd like
to get it out of the way..
Dave.
OK, so I've
On 6/12/07, Thomas Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
...
I was reviewing the xf86mm.h interface, and I was wondering, do we
really need to put the structs in the header? Could we get away with
just adding a couple of accessor functions and then keeping the
Anyone objections to pulling over the ttm interface ioctl changes?
These are going to be annoying no matter when I do it .. so I'd like
to get it out of the way..
Dave.
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Dave Airlie wrote:
Anyone objections to pulling over the ttm interface ioctl changes?
These are going to be annoying no matter when I do it .. so I'd like
to get it out of the way..
Dave.
Dave,
can you give me a day or so to review?
/Thomas
13 matches
Mail list logo
