On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 09:03 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: > >> Yes, unless it's to enforce a local permission model, like the old DRM >> shmem maps did. > > Abusing GEM objects to hold state which never touches the graphics card > is an ugly way to accomplish this.
I guess it's easy and convenient to shoot this part of the design down at this point, but please consider: - at the time I did this, TTM was the one memory manager and already supported this feature. - using a drm provided shared memory scheme re-uses the existing auth scheme. - doesn't introduce exotic dependencies to something that's *supposedly* an os-agnostic feature. Of course, even Linux doesn't have a memory manager yet, so worrying about depending on shm_open() is academic. Anyway, with the brouhaha out the way, I do agree that just using regular posix shared memory is nicer and more flexible and I have a set of patches that implements it. I'll probably change the DRI interface to make it accept a void pointer for the sarea, so for cases like EGL where reader and writer of the sarea are in the same process, you can just malloc the sarea. cheers, Kristian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
