On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Dan Kegel <d...@kegel.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Sir Gallantmon <ngomp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Dan Kegel <d...@kegel.com> wrote: > >> > What do you think about implementing wineserver kernel module or > >> > handling only performance critical items in kernel? > >> > >> There has long been talk of doing that. Linus is > >> even willing to take patches to implement win32 APIs > >> in the linux kernel. > >> But it turns out to not be what most people need. > > > > What do you mean by that? Wouldn't it be a good idea to be able to > support > > some parts of Wine in the kernel level to be more efficient? > > Of course. It's just hard, and it isn't needed for the things > we tend to use Wine for at the moment. Somebody actually > had a shot at implementing this back in 2000, see > http://lwn.net/2000/0914/a/lt-wine.php3 > And that work lives on, it seems, as a part of > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Unified_Kernel > So go try it out if you like (although I'm not sure > how safe it is for production). > > I think the Wine team doesn't need to worry about > that stuff; we have our hands full just making the > win32 userland work well. > - Dan >
I would think that maybe the work Wine does for Direct3D could be moved into a state tracker for Gallium, that way it shouldn't be necessary to convert from Direct3D to OpenGL to make it work. I doubt Direct3D and OpenGL include equivalents for everything, so it might be a good idea to have for a SoC project to hook up Wine's D3D implementation into Gallium.