On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:30:38AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Daniel Stone wrote:
FWIW, Option ModulePath in xorg.conf lets you more or less do this;
the usual approach is to install your new server + drivers into a
separate prefix.
The thing is, Xorg has - and I
They want the benefits of lots of testers, without wanting to be
courteous to those testers.
Except for the small rather important detail that the Nouveau developers
didn't ask for it to be merged in the first place.
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200, Daniel Stone said:
So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever? Cool,
that worked really well for
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 08:52:35PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
They want the benefits of lots of testers, without wanting to be
courteous to those testers.
Except for the small rather important detail that the Nouveau developers
didn't ask for it to be merged in the first place.
*Someone* on
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 11:28:16AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 09:40 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Why are people making excuses for bad programming and bad technology?
Is not bad technology is new technology,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 2010-03-05 22:51 schrieb ty...@mit.edu:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:46AM -0800, Corbin Simpson wrote:
If distros want to run weird experiments on their users, let them!
Sure, sometimes bad things happen, but sometimes good things happen
too.
Hi,
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 10:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
it difficult to have some libdrm that can handle both
versions.
You shouldn't expect, by now, upgrade drm kernel without update libdrm
or at least recompile libdrm.
So when you saw a error message driver nouveau 0.0.n+1 and have
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote:
You shouldn't expect, by now, upgrade drm kernel without update libdrm
or at least recompile libdrm.
Why?
Why shouldn't I expect that? I already outlined exactly _how_ it could be
done.
Why are people saying that technology has to suck?
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 09:40 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Why are people making excuses for bad programming and bad technology?
Is not bad technology is new technology, the API have to change faster ,
unless you want wait 2 years until get stable .
--
Sérgio M. B.
smime.p7s
Description:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 09:40 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Why are people making excuses for bad programming and bad technology?
Is not bad technology is new technology, the API have to change faster ,
unless you want wait 2 years until get
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 03:53:32PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Even if Stepane doesn't care, people inside RedHat/Fedora must care. Are
you guys simply planning on never supporting F12 with 2.6.34? I'd expect
it to be a _major_ pain to have that whole hardcoded X and kernel must
always
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
And if we end up having people bisecting back and forth, I will hate that
f*cking nouveau driver even more.
Would it help to tag the flag day commit? At least that would make it
trivial for bisecters to see
On 03/04/2010 01:32 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On 03/04/2010 02:04 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Please note that these drivers are under heavy development, may or may
not work, and may contain userspace interfaces that most likely will be
changed in the near future.
Shipping it as the default
On Thursday 04 March 2010 18:53:32 Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Dave Airlie wrote:
I'm not saying it doesn't happen in other drivers from time to time, but
when it does its treated as regression, for nouveau and STAGING that
isn't what the Nouveau project (which Stephane
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 23:44, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Pekka Enberg penb...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
The conclusion is crystal clear, breaking an ABI via a flag day
cleanup/feature/etc is:
?- wrong
?- harmful
On Fri 5.Mar'10 at 8:44:07 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Yeah. I've seen a few other bad arguments as well:
'exploding test matrix'
This is often the result of _another_ bad technical decision:
over-modularization.
Xorg, mesa/libdrm and the kernel DRM drivers pretty share this
On 03/04/2010 05:59 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:21 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
# sed -i 's/\kernel\.*/ nouveau.modeset=0/g' /etc/grub.conf
Never tried this part.
The bug I'm assuming you're referring to is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519298
in which
The conclusion is crystal clear, breaking an ABI via a flag day
cleanup/feature/etc is:
Ingo go read the staging Kconfig. It's crystal clear, and lots of vendor
junk that is in there being cleaned up it would be *insane* to keep their
old APIs
See there's a bigger offence than breaking an ABI
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:00:30 +0100, Carlos R. Mafra said:
Why can't there be a 'Linus Torvalds' for Xorg accepting patches from various
maintainers and keeping the whole thing tied up? Why can't it mimic the
'make menuconfig' way of selecting what to compile to have the guarantee that
the
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:44:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Yeah. I've seen a few other bad arguments as well:
'exploding test matrix'
This is often the result of _another_ bad technical decision:
over-modularization.
Xorg, mesa/libdrm and the kernel DRM drivers pretty share this
So man up, guys. Face the problem, rather than say well, it's staging,
or well, we can revert it. Neither of those really solve anything in the
short run _or_ the long run.
Linus stop and think for a minute instead. Maybe a timeline would help
Nouveau development starts
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:32:02 -0500
Jeff Garzik j...@garzik.org wrote:
On 03/04/2010 02:04 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Please note that these drivers are under heavy development, may or may
not work, and may contain userspace interfaces that most likely will be
changed in the near future.
Why does the X community not understand simple library versioning?
Why does Linus Torvalds not understand the Kconfig of his own staging
directory ?
Alan
--
Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software
From: Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:38:34 +
The conclusion is crystal clear, breaking an ABI via a flag day
cleanup/feature/etc is:
Ingo go read the staging Kconfig. It's crystal clear, and lots of vendor
junk that is in there being cleaned up it would be
If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
and making kernel development difficult for so many people matters to
us.
It's about the tester base, and this breakage shrinks the tester base
From: Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:09:34 +
I think you miss a bigger picture ?
If Fedora hadn't merged it then it wouldn't have gotten to the state of
usability it had. If Fedora hadn't merged it then several hundred
thousand users wouldn't have had useful
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, C. Bergström wrote:
staging != stable
This really is being repeated, over and over. But it's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because it's just a bad _excuse_.
That driver is used in production environments. That's _reality_. The
whole staging thing is nothing more than a
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 06:37 -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:38:34 +
The conclusion is crystal clear, breaking an ABI via a flag day
cleanup/feature/etc is:
Ingo go read the staging Kconfig. It's crystal clear, and lots
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Carlos R. Mafra crmaf...@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't there be a 'Linus Torvalds' for Xorg accepting patches from various
maintainers and keeping the whole thing tied up? Why can't it mimic the
'make menuconfig' way of selecting what to compile to have the
From: Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:17:54 +0200
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
and making
Personally I wouldn't have ever committed to that user visible APIs
can break cause it's in -stable. Because that's complete garbage
Staging has to have the no API rules. Read some of the stuff in there to
understand why or apply about 30 seconds of thought to what it would mean
to you.
There
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:26:12AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:22:27AM -0500, Matt Turner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Carlos R. Mafra crmaf...@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't there be a 'Linus Torvalds' for Xorg accepting patches from
various
maintainers and keeping the whole thing tied up? Why can't it mimic the
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
and making kernel development difficult for so many people matters to
us.
Maybe the lesson to
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 06:24 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On 03/04/2010 05:59 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
in which you merely remove the nouveau userspace component, and in which
I can't tell if you built nouveau into the kernel or not, but I assume
you didn't based on your previous post. The X
From: Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:40:09 +0200
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:26:12AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
In fact, I argue that the moment nouveau went into Fedora and
was turned on by default, the interfaces needed to be frozen.
That's a matter for the
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
Whereas everytime I wanted to do that with Xorg it was such a pain that
I want to keep away from that mess.
Actually, take it from me: Xorg is _pleasant_ to test these days.
Ok, so that's partly compared to the mess it _used_ to be, but it's
It seems to me that Linus' technical argument is indeed being mostly ignored.
While breaking the ABI is unfortunate, the real problem that Linus
complained about is that you can't install several userspace versions
side-by-side.
This means that if you install your new kernel and userspace,
You can't unleash something like this on a userbase of this magnitude
and then throw your hands up in the air and say I'm not willing to
support this in a reasonable way.
Not to belabour the obvious - they didn't. Linus ordered them to merge it.
We're better than that.
If you consider the
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:48:35AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:26:12AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
In fact, I argue that the moment nouveau went into Fedora and
was turned on by default, the interfaces needed to be frozen.
From: Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:02:17 +
You can't unleash something like this on a userbase of this magnitude
and then throw your hands up in the air and say I'm not willing to
support this in a reasonable way.
Not to belabour the obvious - they didn't.
From: Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200
So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever? Cool,
that
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, David Miller wrote:
In fact, I argue that the moment nouveau went into Fedora and
was turned on by default, the interfaces needed to be frozen.
Now, I agree that that would have been the optimal setup from a testing an
user standpoint, but I think it's a bit too strong.
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:56:10 +0100
Luca Barbieri luca.barbi...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that Linus' technical argument is indeed being mostly ignored.
While breaking the ABI is unfortunate, the real problem that Linus
complained about is that you can't install several userspace
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:53:46AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
These days, there's a few dependencies you need to know about (I do agree
that from a user perspective the thing might have been made a bit _too_
modular)
Indeed, no argument here.
That said, the _one_ thing I really wish
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
You can't unleash something like this on a userbase of this magnitude
and then throw your hands up in the air and say I'm not willing to
support this in a reasonable way.
Not to belabour the obvious - they didn't. Linus ordered them to merge it.
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:03 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 11:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Two wrong choices don't make a right.
So unmerge it.
That's what I told people I can do (I'd just revert that commit).
Read it
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:44:07 +0100
Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
It's a bit as if we split up the kernel into 'microkernel' components, did a
VFS ABI, MM ABI, drivers ABI, scheduler ABI, networking ABI and arch ABIs,
and
then tried to develop them as separate components.
If we did then
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
Yeah perhaps Fedora should have pushed an update that was smart enough to
handle the Nouveau old/new ABI before the patch went upstream. Hindsight
is an exact science.
Alan - it seems you're missing the whole point.
The thing I objected to, in the VERY
So the watershed moment was _never_ the Linus merged it. The watershed
moment was always Fedora started shipping it. That's when the problems
with a standard upstream kernel started.
Why is that so hard for people to understand?
So why are you screaming at the DRM and Nouveau people about
I think you need to be clearer about that. Your distribution packaging
may not support that out of the box. There are a variety of ways to do
almsot all of this including having entire parallel X installs for
development work.
Sure, but each user must manually find out how to setup that, and
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:53:46 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
Whereas everytime I wanted to do that with Xorg it was such a pain that
I want to keep away from that mess.
Actually, take it from me: Xorg is
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:06:26 -0800 (PST)
David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200
So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your
The thing I objected to, in the VERY BEGINNING in this thread, i the fact
that the thing was done in such a way that it's basically impossible to
support the old/new ABI at all!
What did you expect them to do. They said when you first forced a merge
that they would do this. They have no
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Daniel Stone wrote:
FWIW, Option ModulePath in xorg.conf lets you more or less do this;
the usual approach is to install your new server + drivers into a
separate prefix.
The thing is, Xorg has - and I think for _very_ good reasons - deprecated
using xorg.conf at all.
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
So the watershed moment was _never_ the Linus merged it. The watershed
moment was always Fedora started shipping it. That's when the problems
with a standard upstream kernel started.
Why is that so hard for people to understand?
So why are you
Look at who I screamed at. Dave Airlie. The guy who works for Red Hat. The
guy who is, as far as I know, effectively in charge of that whole
integration. Yeah, I realize that there are other people (Kyle?) involved,
and maybe Dave isn't as central as I think he is, but I learnt from last
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Daniel Stone wrote:
So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever?
I think that's what David ended up saying, but I
Alan Cox wrote:
Look at who I screamed at. Dave Airlie. The guy who works for Red Hat. The
guy who is, as far as I know, effectively in charge of that whole
integration. Yeah, I realize that there are other people (Kyle?) involved,
and maybe Dave isn't as central as I think he is, but I
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:31:29PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:06:26 -0800 (PST)
David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200
So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:02:17 +
You can't unleash something like this on a userbase of this magnitude
and then throw your hands up in the air and say I'm not willing to
* Mike Galbraith efa...@gmx.de wrote:
On the bright side, all this hubbub sends a very positive message to the
noveau development crew. Folks, your work is important. I'd be proud as a
peacock :)
Heh, most definitely so!
Noveau really is a game-changer i think, it's a big break-through
On 03/05/2010 10:17 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
and making kernel development difficult for so
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Daniel Stone wrote:
So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever? Cool,
that worked really well
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:04:14PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
You can only see it as malicious if you assume they ever had some reason
to keep compatibility or had promised it somewhere. Quite the reverse
happened, and they never asked to be upstream in the first place.
The reason why this thread
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:46 AM, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Daniel Stone wrote:
So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
absolutely rock-solid stable for
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:21:29 +, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
Serious discussion point perhaps should be: is the libdrm so close to the
kernel it ought to be in the same git tree ? Alternatively does it need
to be easier to have multiple Nouveau libdrms autoselected according to
So overall, I'd say that we spent about a month of developer time
at least between jbarnes, ickle, and myself, on extending the execbuf
interface to add a flag saying dear kernel, please don't do this bit of
work on this buffer, because I don't need it and it makes things slow.
Perhaps then,
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Corbin Simpson
mostawesomed...@gmail.com wrote:
I was trying my hardest to not say anything, but...
[blah blah Fedora blah Ubuntu blah staging blah blah]
That said... Code probably is moving too fast inside nouveau. There is
a bit of a wall to go through to
Strawman, mostly because all distros suck, the less patches you apply the
less likely things are to work, LFS is the most fragile thing out there,
etc. Hurp derp.
If you need a feature not in the distro, and it is needed because you have
installed something not in the distro or not new enough,
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Ben Skeggs wrote:
The F13 packages *will* work, so long as you're not bisecting back and
forth.
How do I install just the F13 libdrm thing, without changing everything
else? I'm willing to
On 03/05/2010 09:42 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On 03/05/2010 10:17 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
and
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:46AM -0800, Corbin Simpson wrote:
If distros want to run weird experiments on their users, let them!
Sure, sometimes bad things happen, but sometimes good things happen
too. ConsoleKit, DeviceKit, HAL, NetworkManager, KMS, yaird, dracut,
Plymouth, the list goes on
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
The thing I objected to, in the VERY BEGINNING in this thread, i the fact
that the thing was done in such a way that it's basically impossible to
support the old/new ABI at all!
[...]
The way this was done,
Distro's that want to have a good reputation need to have a higher
standard than, hey, it's allowed by the GPL. And maybe if we are
sinking to the point where people are going to use stable means ABI
breakages are allowed, we need to change the rules, since people want
to quote rules as
Hmm. What the hell am I supposed to do about
(II) NOUVEAU(0): [drm] nouveau interface version: 0.0.16
(EE) NOUVEAU(0): [drm] wrong version, expecting 0.0.15
(EE) NOUVEAU(0): 879:
now?
What happened to the whole backwards compatibility thing? I wasn't even
warned that
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I see the commit that does this was very aware of it:
commit a1606a9596e54da90ad6209071b357a4c1b0fa82
Author: Ben Skeggs bske...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Feb 12 10:27:35 2010 +1000
drm/nouveau: new gem pushbuf
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jesse Barnes wrote:
Whoa, so breaking ABI in staging drivers isn't ok? Lots of other
staging drivers are shipped by distros with compatible userspaces, but I
thought the whole point of staging was to fix up ABIs before they
became mainstream and had backwards compat
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:36:55 -0800
Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote:
Yes Dave probably should have mentioned it in his pull request, but
that doesn't seem to be a good reason not to pull imo...
And now I see Dave did mention this, so
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
When you asked that nouveau was merged, people explicitly told you that
the reason it hadn't been was because the interface was unstable and
userspace would break. You asked that it be merged anyway, and now
you're unhappy because the interface
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:51:20 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:36:55 -0800
Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote:
Yes Dave probably should have mentioned it in his pull request, but
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
But none of that changes my basic objections. I didn't ask for nouveau to
be merged as staging - I asked it to be merged because a major distro uses
it.
Put another way: the issue of whether _I_ happen to see this personally or
not is kind of
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:18:03 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Hmm. What the hell am I supposed to do about
(II) NOUVEAU(0): [drm] nouveau interface version: 0.0.16
(EE) NOUVEAU(0): [drm] wrong version, expecting 0.0.15
(EE) NOUVEAU(0):
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:36:55 -0800
Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote:
Yes Dave probably should have mentioned it in his pull request, but
that doesn't seem to be a good reason not to pull imo...
And now I see Dave did mention this, so what gives. Guidance please.
--
Jesse Barnes,
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jesse Barnes wrote:
If marking the driver as staging doesn't allow them to break ABI when
they need to, then it seems like they'll have no choice but to either
remove the driver from upstream and only submit it when the ABI is
stable, or fork the driver and submit a new
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
If you'd made it clear that you wanted the interface to be stable
before it got merged, I suspect that it simply wouldn't have been merged
until the interface was stable.
What kind of excuse is that? It's we did bad things, but if we didn't do
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:43:30AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Or is there a version of X that can handle _both_ the 0.0.15 and the
0.0.16 interfaces?
When you asked that nouveau was merged, people explicitly told you that
the reason it hadn't been was because the interface was unstable and
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:51:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
That doesn't change the simple basic issue: how are people with Fedora-12
going to test any kernel out now? And are there libdrm versions that can
handle _both_ cases, so that people can bisect things? IOW, even if you
have a
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:55:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
When you asked that nouveau was merged, people explicitly told you that
the reason it hadn't been was because the interface was unstable and
userspace would break. You asked that
If marking the driver as staging doesn't allow them to break ABI when
they need to, then it seems like they'll have no choice but to either
remove the driver from upstream and only submit it when the ABI is
stable, or fork the driver and submit a new one only when the ABI is
stable. Neither
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
but why the hell wasn't I made aware of it before-hand? Quite frankly, I
probably wouldn't have pulled it.
From Dave's initial pull request [git pull] drm merge from March 1,
he does say
*NOTE* in case you
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You're asking volunteers who didn't ask for their driver to be merged to
perform more work in order to support users they didn't ask for.
And _you_ are making excuses for BAD TECHNICAL DECISIONS!
Come on! How hard is it to admit that that the
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:08:07 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
The thing is, they clearly didn't even _try_ to make anything compatible.
See how all the ioctl numbers were moved around.
And if you can't make if backwards compatible, at least you should make it
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Dave Airlie wrote:
At the moment in Fedora we deal with this for our users, we have
dependencies between userspace and kernel space and we upgrade the bits
when they upgrade the kernels, its a pain in the ass, but its what we
accepted we needed to do to get nouveau
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
IOW, we have a real technical problem here. Are you just going to continue
to make excuses about it?
I'm not questioning the fact that it would be preferable to provide
compatibility. But that compatibility doesn't come for free - someone
On 03/04/2010 02:04 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Please note that these drivers are under heavy development, may or may
not work, and may contain userspace interfaces that most likely will be
changed in the near future.
Shipping it as the default Fedora driver for NVIDIA hardware makes that
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 11:14:11AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
If you'd made it clear that you wanted the interface to be stable
before it got merged, I suspect that it simply wouldn't have been merged
until the interface was stable.
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 11:41:22AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Is there some model of versioning inside X _except_ for the it won't
work kind of thing? Can we fix this going forward, so that you can have
_real_ versioning (ie multiple installed versions of a libdrm, the way you
can have
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:07:19PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Do you seriously think that that wouldn't make life easier EVEN FOR THOSE
DEVELOPERS that you claim to speak up for?
Compared to dealing with Mesa's build system? I honestly wouldn't want
to say. But you're right that pushing
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:07, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
IOW, we have a real technical problem here. Are you just going to continue
to make excuses about it?
I'm not questioning the fact that it would be preferable to
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
