[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [git pull] drm request 3

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> Yeah perhaps Fedora should have pushed an update that was smart enough to
> handle the Nouveau old/new ABI before the patch went upstream. Hindsight
> is an exact science.

Alan - it seems you're missing the whole point.

The thing I objected to, in the VERY BEGINNING in this thread, i the fact
that the thing was done in such a way that it's basically impossible to
support the old/new ABI at all! Let me quote that second email:

"That commit seems to _on_purpose_ try to avoid at all cost being
compatible. It not only removes some old entry-points, it literally
re-numbers all the ioctl numbers as it does so, apparently entirely in
order to just make it difficult to have some libdrm that can handle both

So it's not a "before the patch went upstream" issue. The same issue
exists _after_ the patch went upstream.

The way this was done, it's apparently basically impossible for the Fedora
people to push out packaged that support both the old and the new kernel.

Alan, if this had been done in a way that allowed that whole old/new ABI
that you mention to work, I wouldn't have been complaining so much!

In other words - I've not been complaining about updating the ABI. I've
been complaining about doing it in such a way that it's near impossible to
go back-and-forth, because the very thing you suggest was made way way
harder than it should be.


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-05 17:23    [W:0.099 / U:5.364 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site