Re: drm_handle_t vs. unsigned long

2005-11-29 Thread Dave Airlie
I'm a bit rusty on the DRM but it looks like the changes are minor so I may do the updates unless someone beats me to it, or indicates there's a reason for things as they are. I'm still catching up on email from the holiday weekend, but I plan to import a new libdrm into the monolith

Re: drm_handle_t vs. unsigned long

2005-11-29 Thread Brian Paul
Dave Airlie wrote: I'm a bit rusty on the DRM but it looks like the changes are minor so I may do the updates unless someone beats me to it, or indicates there's a reason for things as they are. I'm still catching up on email from the holiday weekend, but I plan to import a new libdrm into the

Re: drm_handle_t vs. unsigned long

2005-11-29 Thread Adam Jackson
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 10:52, Brian Paul wrote: Looks like the whole Mesa/src/mesa/drivers/dri/dri_client/ directory should go away. Is that right? Yes. - ajax pgpGtCkbkGN4s.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: drm_handle_t vs. unsigned long

2005-11-28 Thread Adam Jackson
On Friday 25 November 2005 17:51, Brian Paul wrote: I've been poking around in the DRM code a bit. One thing I've noticed is that the xf86drm.h file in the DRI/drm tree is a bit out of sync with the xf86drm.h file in the X.org tree. In particular, the use of unsigned long vs. drm_handle_t.

drm_handle_t vs. unsigned long

2005-11-25 Thread Brian Paul
I've been poking around in the DRM code a bit. One thing I've noticed is that the xf86drm.h file in the DRI/drm tree is a bit out of sync with the xf86drm.h file in the X.org tree. In particular, the use of unsigned long vs. drm_handle_t. It looks like the later (drm_handle_t in the X.org