On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:14:02AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 04/18/2018 08:01 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:38:39AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> >>On 04/17/2018 11:57 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:59:28AM +0200, Daniel
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:14:02AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 04/18/2018 08:01 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:38:39AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> >>On 04/17/2018 11:57 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:59:28AM +0200, Daniel
On 04/18/2018 08:01 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:38:39AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
On 04/17/2018 11:57 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:59:28AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:29:05PM -0700, Dongwon Kim wrote:
Yeah, I
On 04/18/2018 08:01 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:38:39AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
On 04/17/2018 11:57 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:59:28AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:29:05PM -0700, Dongwon Kim wrote:
Yeah, I
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:38:39AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 04/17/2018 11:57 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:59:28AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:29:05PM -0700, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> >>>Yeah, I definitely agree on the idea of
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:38:39AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 04/17/2018 11:57 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:59:28AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:29:05PM -0700, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> >>>Yeah, I definitely agree on the idea of
On 04/17/2018 11:57 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:59:28AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:29:05PM -0700, Dongwon Kim wrote:
Yeah, I definitely agree on the idea of expanding the use case to the
general domain where dmabuf sharing is used. However,
On 04/17/2018 11:57 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:59:28AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:29:05PM -0700, Dongwon Kim wrote:
Yeah, I definitely agree on the idea of expanding the use case to the
general domain where dmabuf sharing is used. However,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:59:28AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:29:05PM -0700, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> > Yeah, I definitely agree on the idea of expanding the use case to the
> > general domain where dmabuf sharing is used. However, what you are
> > targetting with
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:59:28AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:29:05PM -0700, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> > Yeah, I definitely agree on the idea of expanding the use case to the
> > general domain where dmabuf sharing is used. However, what you are
> > targetting with
On 04/17/2018 10:59 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:29:05PM -0700, Dongwon Kim wrote:
Yeah, I definitely agree on the idea of expanding the use case to the
general domain where dmabuf sharing is used. However, what you are
targetting with proposed changes is identical to the
On 04/17/2018 10:59 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:29:05PM -0700, Dongwon Kim wrote:
Yeah, I definitely agree on the idea of expanding the use case to the
general domain where dmabuf sharing is used. However, what you are
targetting with proposed changes is identical to the
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:29:05PM -0700, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> Yeah, I definitely agree on the idea of expanding the use case to the
> general domain where dmabuf sharing is used. However, what you are
> targetting with proposed changes is identical to the core design of
> hyper_dmabuf.
>
> On
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:29:05PM -0700, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> Yeah, I definitely agree on the idea of expanding the use case to the
> general domain where dmabuf sharing is used. However, what you are
> targetting with proposed changes is identical to the core design of
> hyper_dmabuf.
>
> On
Yeah, I definitely agree on the idea of expanding the use case to the
general domain where dmabuf sharing is used. However, what you are
targetting with proposed changes is identical to the core design of
hyper_dmabuf.
On top of this basic functionalities, hyper_dmabuf has driver level
Yeah, I definitely agree on the idea of expanding the use case to the
general domain where dmabuf sharing is used. However, what you are
targetting with proposed changes is identical to the core design of
hyper_dmabuf.
On top of this basic functionalities, hyper_dmabuf has driver level
Hello, all!
After discussing xen-zcopy and hyper-dmabuf [1] approaches
it seems that xen-zcopy can be made not depend on DRM core any more
and be dma-buf centric (which it in fact is).
The DRM code was mostly there for dma-buf's FD import/export
with DRM PRIME UAPI and with DRM use-cases in
Hello, all!
After discussing xen-zcopy and hyper-dmabuf [1] approaches
it seems that xen-zcopy can be made not depend on DRM core any more
and be dma-buf centric (which it in fact is).
The DRM code was mostly there for dma-buf's FD import/export
with DRM PRIME UAPI and with DRM use-cases in
18 matches
Mail list logo
