Re: Why no XML in the Kernel?

From: Nix (nix_at_esperi.org.uk)
Date: 10/05/05

  • Next message: avi: "Re: PAE causing failure to run various executables."
    To: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
    Date:	Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:31:11 +0100
    
    

    On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Dave Airlie announced authoritatively:
    >> (Current rant: DRM churn, forcing one of abandonment of decent 3D
    >> support, or upgrading of the X server to the bleeding-edge, or using an
    >> old kernel with known security holes, or becoming enough of a DRI
    >> developer to backport the changes, or using nothing but distro kernels
    >> <=2.6.11. Most of these are not terribly feasible for me right now. Ah
    >> well, my 3D card is total crap anyway. It's just a shame the X server
    >> crashes whenever asked to do in-software 3D rendering... time to
    >> debug. I thought I might actually get some work done this evening. Fat
    >> chance.)
    >
    > This is just mach64, we don't have mach64 support in the kernel so it
    > has nothing to do with the kernel... I've no idea why mach64 broke but

    I misspoke. Some of the non-DRM API changes around 2.6.12 broke the
    6.8.2 mach64 module in DRI CVS; the development version builds again,
    and nearly works.

    > upgrading everything won't fix it.. the kernel-drm and userspace do
    > not need to be kept in any sort of lockstep,

    I could swear that I've encountered problems in the past due to
    upgrading one and not the other, but since I can't actually remember
    what those problems *were*, I'll shut up.

    > and the mach64 dri code
    > hasn't been touched by anyone in > 1 year probably even two.. (I was
    > last person to own one to test it on...)

    I'd not have got a mach64 if I hadn't got the machine free. I hear
    R9200s are the most useful 3D cards with free drivers around at the
    moment: I suppose I should get one. (It's not as though the Mach64's
    hardware 3D support is significantly faster than software rendering on
    this 1300MHz Athlon anyway.)

    > If you could nail down exactly when it went south then we can fix
    > it... but giving out here won't help anyone..

    It was just a random rant: I know that I can't really complain until
    I've tried the development version, so I've built up 6.8.99.900, which
    nearly half sort-of works, modulo only fdo bugs #4574 (which bug breaks
    the mach64 DRM module, but at least it builds and modprobes OK), and
    #4696 (which kills the X server and is probably a Mesa bug rather than
    anything Mach64-specific).

    No kernel-tree problems, really, and I'm not complaining about the speed
    of kernel development at all, let alone asking for some mythical and
    restrictive stable module API. I'm just wondering if I'll ever be able
    to use DRI for more than a month at a time without something breaking it
    :( such are the risks of using a card with out-of-tree DRM support.

    (Aside: I must say I'm damn impressed by the X server's internal API
    stability. I screwed up the installation of X.org 6.8.99.900, and for a
    day or so was unknowingly running the X.org 6.8.2 X server against the
    6.8.99.900 modules. Except for problems drawing certain small pixmaps,
    it seemed to work perfectly well!)

    -- 
    `Next: FEMA neglects to take into account the possibility of
    fire in Old Balsawood Town (currently in its fifth year of drought
    and home of the General Grant Home for Compulsive Arsonists).'
                --- James Nicoll
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
    

  • Next message: avi: "Re: PAE causing failure to run various executables."