On 10/13/07, Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I do
> > think it's worth moving forward with this though. Personally, I get
> > these patches off of my plate and can focus on the next steps.
>
> I'm all for making forward progress and abandoning broken interfaces as
> early as possible
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:53 -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> They do drop support, yes, but of course, I'm committing a series of X
> server patches along with this to let AIGLX load the new driver API.
> This means that you can't load a git dri driver with any released X
> server, which is the
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 10:36 +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 10:19 +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> >> Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 18:44 -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> On 10/11/07, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
On 10/12/07, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> So the question is - how much effort do we want to put into the case
> where there are multiple clients PLUS buffer resizes. Multiple clients
> is a rare case in itself, and resizes are a transient varient on a rare
> case. Also just wh
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:53 -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>
> Finally, along with the X server patches, this does land new features.
> With these patches I can land the X server work to enable GLX 1.4
> support and the visual cleanup, we just wont be able to advertise any
> GLXPixmap or GLXPbu
On 10/12/07, Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> > The DRI driver interface changes I'm proposing here should not be
> > affected by these issues though. Detecting that the buffers changed
> > and allocating and attaching new ones is entirely between the DRI
> > driver and the DRM. Whe
Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 10:19 +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>> Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 18:44 -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
On 10/11/07, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3) Share buffers with a reference counting scheme.
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 10:19 +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 18:44 -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> >> On 10/11/07, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 3) Share buffers with a reference counting scheme. When a client
> >>> not
Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 18:44 -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> On 10/11/07, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> 3) Share buffers with a reference counting scheme. When a client
>>> notices the buffer needs a resize, do the resize and adjust refcounts -
>
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 18:44 -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> On 10/11/07, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 3) Share buffers with a reference counting scheme. When a client
> > notices the buffer needs a resize, do the resize and adjust refcounts -
> > other clients contin
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 00:19 +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Basically any API-generated event that implies a flush. Internally
> generated events, like running out of some resource and having to fire
> buffers to recover generally don't count.
If I understand this, then the only time you'll ch
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 23:39 +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Maybe we're examining the wrong spec here. My concerns are all about
> what happens when the window changes size -- what does X tell us about
> the contents of a window under those circumstances? Does the GLX spec
> actually specify
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 12:08:09AM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
| Just to clarify, would things look a bit like this:
|
| Master:
| clear,
| glFlush,
| signal slaves somehow
|
| Slave0..n:
| wait for signal,
| don't clear, just draw triangles
| glFlush
|
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> On 10/11/07, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Brian Paul wrote:
> ...
>>> If two GLX clients render to the same double-buffered GLX window, each
>>> is going to have a different/private back color buffer, right? That
>>> doesn't really obey the GLX spec. The
Allen Akin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 10:35:28PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> | Suppose 2 clients render to the same backbuffer...
>
> The (rare) cases in which I've seen this used, the clients are aware of
> one another, and restrict their rendering to non-overlapping portions of
> the dr
Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Brian Paul wrote:
>> Keith Whitwell wrote:
>>> Brian Paul wrote:
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have this branch with DRI interface changes that I've been
> threatening to merge on several occasions:
>
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/m
On 10/11/07, Brian Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keith Whitwell wrote:
...
> > Kristian - I apologize that I only ever look at this briefly & under
> > duress... I'm off to read the spec properly now.
>
> Kristian, I also apologize for not tracking this stuff closer and don't
> mean to cause y
On 10/11/07, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Paul wrote:
...
> > If two GLX clients render to the same double-buffered GLX window, each
> > is going to have a different/private back color buffer, right? That
> > doesn't really obey the GLX spec. The renderbuffers which compose a
Brian Paul wrote:
> Keith Whitwell wrote:
>> Brian Paul wrote:
>>> Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
Hi,
I have this branch with DRI interface changes that I've been
threatening to merge on several occasions:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/mesa/log/?h=dri2
I've ju
Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Brian Paul wrote:
>> Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have this branch with DRI interface changes that I've been
>>> threatening to merge on several occasions:
>>>
>>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/mesa/log/?h=dri2
>>>
>>> I've just rebased to todays mesa and
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 10:35:28PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
| Suppose 2 clients render to the same backbuffer...
The (rare) cases in which I've seen this used, the clients are aware of
one another, and restrict their rendering to non-overlapping portions of
the drawable. A "master" client is
On 10/11/07, Brian Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have this branch with DRI interface changes that I've been
> > threatening to merge on several occasions:
> >
> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/mesa/log/?h=dri2
> >
> > I've just rebased to todays m
Brian Paul wrote:
> Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have this branch with DRI interface changes that I've been
>> threatening to merge on several occasions:
>>
>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/mesa/log/?h=dri2
>>
>> I've just rebased to todays mesa and it's ready to merge. Ian
>> revi
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have this branch with DRI interface changes that I've been
> threatening to merge on several occasions:
>
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/mesa/log/?h=dri2
>
> I've just rebased to todays mesa and it's ready to merge. Ian
> reviewed the changes a while b
Hi,
I have this branch with DRI interface changes that I've been
threatening to merge on several occasions:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/mesa/log/?h=dri2
I've just rebased to todays mesa and it's ready to merge. Ian
reviewed the changes a while back gave his ok, and from what we
discussed
25 matches
Mail list logo
