On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:30:45PM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
[...]
> So moving mode setting to user space is not the end of the world. Everything
> will still work. This is more like a monolithic vs microkernel type of decision.
Which is why Linux is a monolithic kernel, it's by design. The net is
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:09:48PM -0500, sottek wrote:
[...]
Well said! We are all behind you.
--
Nicholas Souchu - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.freebsd.org/~nsouch/kgi4BSD
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:29:40AM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
> It's not just bloat, the network code is used millions of times per second. Mode
> setting happens occaisonally.
But necessary some times. I think of oops and debugger.
> The other problem is memory management. What is going to happen
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 07:28:37PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
[...]
>
> Rendering and mode switching are completely separate issues.
Indeed and I guess we can even use the VESA mode setting and the HW
engine of recent graphic boards "concurrently".
The console system is responsible for modesett
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 02:42:14PM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
> --- Nicolas Souchu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A major topic that I missed in the original list was how to handle BSD. DRM
> > > is under the BSD license and FB is GPL. If these two code bases are merged,
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:16:39AM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
> At the X Developers Conference there was a discussion of the issues around
> framebuffer and DRI. Theodore Ts'o suggested that I write it up and post it for
> discussion. I'm going to try and list all of the issues I've heard from all
> s
