Alan Hourihane writes: > I understand the backwards compatibility issues and that's good to have, > but even Paul noted that when the chance arrives that the scheme should > be changed to match more of what Egbert was trying to achieve.
I had been hoping for some more comments from the "senior" DRI hackers. Egbert's patch takes somewhat the opposite approach from mine; where I extended the RADEONDRIRec structure to have space for 64-bit handles, Egbert's patch unconditionally makes the drm_handle_t be 32-bit. Which is fine if the DRI developers generally agree that limiting handles to 32 bits is OK, but I don't think that discussion has been had yet. > To be honest, looking at the bug report, I'm not sure which patch should > be applied to Mesa and/or X.Org in association with Paul's patch or Egberts. The issue of what structures are used for communication between the X server and the DRI client is largely separate from the issue of communication between them and the kernel. The one thing that links them is the question of whether handles are always limited to 32 bits or not. > Indeed. Things seem to have slid a little here. I hope that Egbert and Paul > can hash things out a little more. I hope so too... Paul. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
