Stephane Marchesin wrote:
Michel DÃnzer wrote:
+DRM_COPY_FROM_USER_IOCTL( memfree, (drm_radeon_mem_free_t __user
*)data,
+ sizeof(memfree) );
+
+dev_priv->surfaces&= (~(1<
It should definitely ensure that only the owner can free a surface
though. It would also need to fre
--- Stephane Marchesin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> >
> >>+ // allocate the surface
> >>+ for(i=0;i<8;i++)
> >>+ if (!(dev_priv->surfaces&(1< >>+ break;
> >>+
> >>+ if (i>=8)
> >>+ return DRM_ERR(ENOMEM);
> >>+ else
> >>+
Stephane Marchesin wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
Any comments ? I'ts untested, but that's my first ioctl, so I wanted
feedback
(both on the idea and the implementation) before I build anything
upon it.
I'm thinking this could be applicable to a number of devices, so maybe a
ge
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
Any comments ? I'ts untested, but that's my first ioctl, so I wanted
feedback
(both on the idea and the implementation) before I build anything
upon it.
I'm thinking this could be applicable to a number of devices, so maybe a
generic ioctl might be a bett
Dave Airlie wrote:
Any comments ? I'ts untested, but that's my first ioctl, so I wanted feedback
(both on the idea and the implementation) before I build anything upon it.
I'm thinking this could be applicable to a number of devices, so maybe a
generic ioctl might be a better idea with some card sp
Michel DÃnzer wrote:
+ // allocate the surface
+ for(i=0;i<8;i++)
+ if (!(dev_priv->surfaces&(1<
+ break;
+
+ if (i>=8)
+ return DRM_ERR(ENOMEM);
+ else
+ dev_priv->surfaces&=(1<
+
+ if ( DRM_COPY_TO_USER( &alloc.surface, &i,
+ sizeof(int) ) ) {
+ DRM_ERROR( "copy_to_user\n" );
+
Dave Airlie wrote:
Any comments ? I'ts untested, but that's my first ioctl, so I wanted feedback
(both on the idea and the implementation) before I build anything upon it.
I'm thinking this could be applicable to a number of devices, so maybe a
generic ioctl might be a better idea with some card s
> Any comments ? I'ts untested, but that's my first ioctl, so I wanted feedback
> (both on the idea and the implementation) before I build anything upon it.
I'm thinking this could be applicable to a number of devices, so maybe a
generic ioctl might be a better idea with some card specific hooks.
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 02:54 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>
> The small attached patch adds a new drm ioctl to do surface
> allocation/deallocation on the radeon.
[...]
> Any comments ? I'ts untested, but that's my first ioctl, so I wanted
> feedback (both on the idea and the implementation
Hi,
The small attached patch adds a new drm ioctl to do surface
allocation/deallocation on the radeon.
The reason to add a new ioctl is the following : since there are only 8
surfaces someone has to arbitrate between allocations by the ddx (color
buffers) and from the dri (depth buffers). Doing
10 matches
Mail list logo
