Hey Jamey! On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 04:25:39PM +0200, ext Jamey Sharp wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Vignatti Tiago (Nokia-MS/Helsinki) > <tiago.vigna...@nokia.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 03:19:11PM +0200, Vignatti Tiago > > (Nokia-MS/Helsinki) wrote: > >> as discussed already in private: > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tiago Vignatti <tiago.vigna...@nokia.com> > > First, I don't understand this use of signed-off-by. Did you mean reviewed-by?
No, I meant s-o-b. >From http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.34.1/Documentation/SubmittingPatches: "The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path." So I considered myself involved in the development of the patch (given our messages exchanged in pvt). Anyway, this is just nitpick... > > oops, I forgot to mention that you can remove the entire function wrapping > > there, Jamey. Just remove VGAarbiterCreateGC entirely. > > That's why I want this patch applied, but I believe the rest of the > patches on my for-1.10 branch are needed before it's safe to entirely > delete this function, and I haven't sent those out for review yet. > > Currently, as far as I can tell, the VGA arbiter needs a wrapper > around ValidateGC, just so that it can unwrap the ops on the way down > the ValidateGC chain, in case some other ValidateGC wrapper changes > the ops pointer. And the current way to get a wrapper around > ValidateGC is to hook the funcs chain from CreateGC. > > When my later patches impose the rule that GC funcs must not modify > the GC ops, then it's safe to delete an awful lot of code, and even > more when I then move the funcs and ops chains to the ScreenRec. All right. > > Also, if all GC operations don't touch the hw at all for all kind of accel, > > then we can extend this patch for the other functions there. > > I don't think anybody's GC funcs touch the hardware, which is good > since the VGA arbiter is already not taking the arbitration lock > around those. But hopefully somebody's GC ops are touching the > hardware or else the whole ops abstraction is pointless. > > With those clarifications, are you satisfied with this patch? Yes! :) Tiago _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
