On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 21:28 +0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote: > On 03/29/2011 08:40 PM, ext Aaron Plattner wrote: > > I disagree. mi is a toolkit of machine-independent driver support > > routines. While I understand that X needs to advance forward and gain > > features, I don't think it should turn its back on its loyal professional > > workstation heritage either. > > we wouldn't be turning back, Aaron. > > This is a nice opportunity to remove some big piece of code and > eventually open space for even more clean up.
What do you think removing mioverlay will let you fix? Who does that benefit, and who does it hurt? Honestly the overlay support is _not_ simply confined to that one file. Once you remove it you'll notice that basically every place in dix that says 'pLayerWin' can be simplified, and if you do so you'll be ripping out so much that nvidia _won't_ be able to maintain overlay support. I think we're coming to the point where it's useful to be able to build out that kind of subsystem in the name of size or whatever, but the way you do that is the way XACE handles being disabled. I know this sounds odd coming from someone who's so actively pro-deletion, but I've tried to stay close to the rule that whatever I'm deleting has to either be superfluous or have a functional replacement. cfb* had fb. mibank had shadow. mioverlay has... well, it has cult-and-paste into the workstation drivers and then hope that we don't break one of the assumptions it's relying on. That's less compelling. - ajax
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
