On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 07:14, Jon Smirl wrote:
This is a first pass at the three new IOCTL patch.
It is against the DRM copy in the Mesa tree.
And exactly why does that still exist? I know you don't listen to me, but I don't think you can ignore Keith.
If there's any reason for this remaining, I'd like to hear it. Keeping the headers is justifiable, I guess, but I don't want to see the DRM drivers living in two places.
If there's an argument that it's time to start a new tree for the DRM code to live in, I'm happy to progress in that direction.
In general, having one client of the drm "blessed" with the duty of holding the DRM code gives a skewed approach to the design of those modules. Having them become a first-class project with their own tree & hopefully their own, concerned, developers looks like a more rational way forward.
So, I guess that's a vote from me for a new tree. But certainly I don't want to see the guts of the DRM jump into the Mesa tree.
Keith
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
