On 6/12/07, Thomas Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kristian Høgsberg wrote: ... > > I was reviewing the xf86mm.h interface, and I was wondering, do we > > really need to put the structs in the header? Could we get away with > > just adding a couple of accessor functions and then keeping the > > structs opaque? I don't which fields of the fence and bo structs are > > internal details and which are to be accessed by users of the library. > > Something like the attached patch, modulo a couple couple of accessor > > functions? > > > > cheers, > > Kristian > > > Kristian, > This is OK with me. It will add an extra malloc / free for every buffer > object creation / destruction, > but will make it easier to maintain in the future, (and we can get rid > of the padding for future expansion).
Exactly, I took out the pad fields in the patch. I think it's a reasonable tradeoff, since we have a library abstraction barrier here and the objects aren't tiny to begin with. > However, it requires some changes to Mesa as well. Yeah... but only i915tex, right? Not a lot of code use this at this point so it's still a manageable change. Kristian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
