On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:39, jhartmann wrote: > Keith Whitwell wrote: > > Jeff, Others, > > > > I've been reviewing the work in the 3.5 branch for backwards > > compatibility and to me it looks like we can do it with a lot less > > effort. Here's what I'm proposing, in one simple sentence: > > > > Instigate a rule where any released ioctl will always be > > supported, with the same semantics and interface. > > > > This sounds simple and has a few consequences. First and foremost is > > that the use of the sarea for passing parameters is deprecated. Any new > > ioctl will take all its parameters through the ioctl struct, even if that > > means some performance issues. I don't think it will however. > > With the current generation of hardware (and the features in our drivers) I > think your probably right. Unless a full t&l driver is released using the > DRI, then perhaps this might become an issue again. I propose that the > ability to set versioning on the interface remains in the codebase, but is > unused in case its needed at some point.
I'm talking specifically about the tnl work I've already done. The sarea is a dead end and no performance gain. Even if we had a versioning scheme the effort of supporting multiple different layouts of the sarea makes the concept unmentionably ugly and unworkable. I'd like to support your compromise, but I don't like where it's leading - it's tacit acknowledgement that we will want to do something in the future which is just plain bad. Keith _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
