Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lennart Sorensen writes:
>
> > You forgot the very important:
> >- Only works on architecture it was compiled for. So anyone not
> > using i386 (and maybe later x86-64) is simply out of luck. What do
> > nvidia users that want
Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lennart Sorensen writes:
You forgot the very important:
- Only works on architecture it was compiled for. So anyone not
using i386 (and maybe later x86-64) is simply out of luck. What do
nvidia users that want accelerated nvidia
At 12:01 AM 3/13/2005 -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You wanna give me a quick run-down on x86 of CPL and Ring levels? It's
been bugging me. I know they're there and have a basic idea that they
control what a context can do, don't know what CPL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You wanna give me a quick run-down on x86 of CPL and Ring levels? It's
been bugging me. I know they're there and have a basic idea that they
control what a context can do, don't know what CPL stands for, and
there's a visible gap in my knowledge. I
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:32:39 -0500, John Richard Moser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CPL=3 scares me; context switches are expensive. can they have direct
> hardware access? I'm sure a security model to isolate user mode drivers
> could be in place. . .
>
> . . . huh. Xen seems to run Linux at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You wanna give me a quick run-down on x86 of CPL and Ring levels? It's
been bugging me. I know they're there and have a basic idea that they
control what a context can do, don't know what CPL stands for, and
there's a visible gap in my knowledge. I
At 12:01 AM 3/13/2005 -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You wanna give me a quick run-down on x86 of CPL and Ring levels? It's
been bugging me. I know they're there and have a basic idea that they
control what a context can do, don't know what CPL
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:32:39 -0500, John Richard Moser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CPL=3 scares me; context switches are expensive. can they have direct
hardware access? I'm sure a security model to isolate user mode drivers
could be in place. . .
. . . huh. Xen seems to run Linux at CPL=3
Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 05:45:22PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > No, it wouldn't. I can use a source code driver on x86,
> > x86-64 and PPC64 systems, but a binary driver is only
> > usable on the architecture it was compiled for.
>
> Add to that the flavours of ARM and the
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:24:15 -0500, John Richard Moser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on using
> binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can consider a
> different implementation
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 05:45:22PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, John Richard Moser wrote:
>
> > A Linux specific binary driver format might be more useful,
>
> No, it wouldn't. I can use a source code driver on x86,
> x86-64 and PPC64 systems, but a binary driver is only
>
Le jeudi 10 mars 2005 à 11:28 -0500, John Richard Moser a écrit :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
> drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
> and what impact that UDI support
Le jeudi 10 mars 2005 à 11:28 -0500, John Richard Moser a écrit :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
and what impact that UDI support would
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 05:45:22PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, John Richard Moser wrote:
A Linux specific binary driver format might be more useful,
No, it wouldn't. I can use a source code driver on x86,
x86-64 and PPC64 systems, but a binary driver is only
usable
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:24:15 -0500, John Richard Moser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on using
binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can consider a
different implementation for
Ben Dooks wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 05:45:22PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
No, it wouldn't. I can use a source code driver on x86,
x86-64 and PPC64 systems, but a binary driver is only
usable on the architecture it was compiled for.
Add to that the flavours of ARM and the number of
Lennart Sorensen writes:
> You forgot the very important:
>- Only works on architecture it was compiled for. So anyone not
> using i386 (and maybe later x86-64) is simply out of luck. What do
> nvidia users that want accelerated nvidia drivers for X DRI do
> right now if they
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, John Richard Moser wrote:
> A Linux specific binary driver format might be more useful,
No, it wouldn't. I can use a source code driver on x86,
x86-64 and PPC64 systems, but a binary driver is only
usable on the architecture it was compiled for.
Source code is way more
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 16:42 -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> People are still e-mailing me about this?
You really expect to post something that inflammatory and have the
emails stop after a few hours?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Chubb wrote:
>>"John" == John Richard Moser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>
> John> I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on
> John> using binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can
> John> consider a
> "John" == John Richard Moser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on
John> using binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can
John> consider a different implementation for binary drivers as well,
John> with most of the same
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
People are still e-mailing me about this?
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:24:15PM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
>
>>I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on using
>>binary drivers, specifically considering
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:24:15PM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on using
> binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can consider a
> different implementation for binary drivers as well, with most of the
> same advantages.
>
Forwarded Message
> From: John Richard Moser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Diego Calleja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: binary drivers and development
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:14:27 -0500
> -BEGIN PGP SI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stop mailing me, I lost interest when I figured out nobody else cared.
Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:24:15 -0500,
> John Richard Moser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
> [...]
>
>> - Smaller kernel tree
>
> [...]
>
>> - Better
El Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:24:15 -0500,
John Richard Moser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
[...]
> - Smaller kernel tree
[...]
> - Better focused development
[...]
> - Faster rebuilding for developers
It can be done without UDI.
> - UDI supplies SMP safety
Well designed drivers don't have SMP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:28:39AM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
>
>
>>I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
>>drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
>>and what
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:19:39PM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > Please, the UDI stuff has been proven to be broken and wrong. If you
> > want to work on it, feel free to do so, just don't expect for anyone to
> > accept the UDI layer into the kernel mainline.
>
> 1.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on using
binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can consider a
different implementation for binary drivers as well, with most of the
same advantages.
- Smaller kernel tree
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:28:39AM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
>
>>I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
>>drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
>>and what impact
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:28:39AM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
> drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
> and what impact that UDI support would have on the kernel's development.
UDI is
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:28:39AM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
> drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
> and what impact that UDI support would have on the kernel's development.
Please, the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
and what impact that UDI support would have on the kernel's development.
I know the immediate first reactions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
and what impact that UDI support would have on the kernel's development.
I know the immediate first reactions
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:28:39AM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
and what impact that UDI support would have on the kernel's development.
Please, the
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:28:39AM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
and what impact that UDI support would have on the kernel's development.
UDI is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:28:39AM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
and what impact that UDI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on using
binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can consider a
different implementation for binary drivers as well, with most of the
same advantages.
- Smaller kernel tree
The
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:19:39PM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Please, the UDI stuff has been proven to be broken and wrong. If you
want to work on it, feel free to do so, just don't expect for anyone to
accept the UDI layer into the kernel mainline.
1. What's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ralf Baechle wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:28:39AM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
and what impact
El Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:24:15 -0500,
John Richard Moser [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
[...]
- Smaller kernel tree
[...]
- Better focused development
[...]
- Faster rebuilding for developers
It can be done without UDI.
- UDI supplies SMP safety
Well designed drivers don't have SMP issues
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stop mailing me, I lost interest when I figured out nobody else cared.
Diego Calleja wrote:
El Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:24:15 -0500,
John Richard Moser [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
[...]
- Smaller kernel tree
[...]
- Better focused
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:24:15PM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on using
binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can consider a
different implementation for binary drivers as well, with most of the
same advantages.
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
People are still e-mailing me about this?
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:24:15PM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on using
binary drivers, specifically considering UDI.
John == John Richard Moser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on
John using binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can
John consider a different implementation for binary drivers as well,
John with most of the same advantages.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Chubb wrote:
John == John Richard Moser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on
John using binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can
John consider a different
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 16:42 -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
People are still e-mailing me about this?
You really expect to post something that inflammatory and have the
emails stop after a few hours?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, John Richard Moser wrote:
A Linux specific binary driver format might be more useful,
No, it wouldn't. I can use a source code driver on x86,
x86-64 and PPC64 systems, but a binary driver is only
usable on the architecture it was compiled for.
Source code is way more
Lennart Sorensen writes:
You forgot the very important:
- Only works on architecture it was compiled for. So anyone not
using i386 (and maybe later x86-64) is simply out of luck. What do
nvidia users that want accelerated nvidia drivers for X DRI do
right now if they have
49 matches
Mail list logo
