On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Dave Airlie <[email protected]> wrote: > In a further effort to show how little testing outside developers we > get, I tried to check dri1 :-) > > Its been broken in a subtlle manner thanks to Keith at > faeebead7bfcc78535757ca7acc1faf7554c03b7 which was back in the 1.8 > days. > > It was then noticeably broken by Daniel in > 459c6da0f907ba33d733c7e62a116184ba2f14e5 > > the thing is the check for DRIGeneration != serverGeneration was > probably always bogus, but in the first commit it meant we never > called DRIExtensionInit internals, the second commit moved some code > into that and that broken drm module loading as the drmServer stuff > never got initialised. > > Now I'm wondering what the correct form for that check should be, > since at the moment DRIGeneration is 0 and serverGeneration is 1 at > entry to that function.
Okay its not as bad as all that its just Daniel's commit that really broken stuff, since I didn't realise ExtensionInit we called after ScreenInit and Daniel's commit moved the drmSetServerInfo into there when its actually needed where the module loader used to call, nice work. I really hope the rest of the extension init changes are as quality. Dave. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
