On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 23:08, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 22:54, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> > First of all, thanks for all the suggestions I've received in this
> > thread.
> >
> > New patch up at http://penguinppc.org/~daenzer/DRI/drm-nopage.diff; does
> > this look acceptable to t
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 22:54, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> First of all, thanks for all the suggestions I've received in this
> thread.
>
> New patch up at http://penguinppc.org/~daenzer/DRI/drm-nopage.diff; does
> this look acceptable to those who are going to do merges between the
> trees? :)
I like t
First of all, thanks for all the suggestions I've received in this
thread.
New patch up at http://penguinppc.org/~daenzer/DRI/drm-nopage.diff; does
this look acceptable to those who are going to do merges between the
trees? :)
--
Earthling Michel DÃnzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI d
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>
> Of course there are also advantages to _not_ using the file-per-kernel
> version scheme.
No there isn't.
The thing is, you should keep those "file-per-OS" files as small as
possible, and only contain the things that are literally different.
Bec
On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 09:19, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In contrast, full-file interfaces for different kernel versions are a
> _lot_ easier to merge and keep track of. They may look like "duplication",
> but the advantages are legion. You don't mix different OS's and different
> versions together,
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> > well the advantage is that the ifdefs can just go away in kernel trees of
> > specific versions... (eg unifdef it)
>
> Does this look better? Maybe a macro (or a typedef?) for the type of the
> last argument would still be a good idea? Or is there y
On Iau, 2004-01-01 at 13:50, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> > Okay, you did something weird with nopage args, but I thought I did
> > the equivalent of this in the original patch?
>
> This is about the canonical DRM code in the DRI tree.
99.9% of people run the DRM code in the kernel tree, so definitions
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 03:27:59PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> Does this look better? Maybe a macro (or a typedef?) for the type of the
> last argument would still be a good idea? Or is there yet a better way?
I'm going to regret suggesting this, but how about:
(a) a typedef for the arg itself
(
On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 13:28, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 01:23:40PM +0100, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> > >
> > > I find using #defines for function arguments ugly beyond belief and
> > > makes it really hard to look through code. I 10x rather have an ifdef in
> > > the function pr
On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 14:33, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Okay, you did something weird with nopage args, but I thought I did
>> the equivalent of this in the original patch?
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 02:50:30PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> This is about the canonical DRM code in the DRI tree.
On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 14:33, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 01:03:38PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > No, this is Linux specific.
> > How does this patch look?
>
> Okay, you did something weird with nopage args, but I thought I did
> the equivalent of this in the original
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 01:03:38PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> No, this is Linux specific.
> How does this patch look?
Okay, you did something weird with nopage args, but I thought I did
the equivalent of this in the original patch?
-- wli
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 01:23:40PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > How does this patch look?
> >
> > ugly.
> >
> > I find using #defines for function arguments ugly beyond belief and
> > makes it really hard to look through code. I 10x rather have an ifdef in
> > the function prototype (which t
On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 13:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 13:03, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
>
> > How does this patch look?
>
> ugly.
>
> I find using #defines for function arguments ugly beyond belief and
> makes it really hard to look through code. I 10x rather have an ifdef in
>
On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 13:03, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> How does this patch look?
ugly.
I find using #defines for function arguments ugly beyond belief and
makes it really hard to look through code. I 10x rather have an ifdef in
the function prototype (which then for the mainstream kernel drm can be
On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 19:21, Jon Smirl wrote:
> The headers for nopageXX calls just changed.
>
> struct page * (*nopage)(struct vm_area_struct * area, unsigned long address, int
> unused);
> changed to:
> struct page * (*nopage)(struct vm_area_struct * area, unsigned long address, int
> *type);
>
The headers for nopageXX calls just changed.
struct page * (*nopage)(struct vm_area_struct * area, unsigned long address, int
unused);
changed to:
struct page * (*nopage)(struct vm_area_struct * area, unsigned long address, int
*type);
The DRM drivers need to be adjusted. This probably impacts th
17 matches
Mail list logo
