On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:41:42 +0100, Thomas Hellstr�m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The idea of using a separate sarea is that it would be easy to extend the > number of locks and more suitable for more drivers than via. Otherwise one > idea would be to > fill the private sarea from the back, but that would break DDX tests for > size of usable area. > > Different sareas are allocated using drmAddMap with type=DRM_SHM. The one > containing the current hardware lock is specified with the flag > DRM_CONTAINS_LOCK.
Shouldn't the sarea have been allocated by the driver in the first place? Maybe this is another place for pemanent maps. I will probably have to change this for multihead support running indenpendent X servers. The current design assumes a master process that creates/deletes sarea and that isn't the case for indepenent multi-head. Code like this is a mistake: drmInfo.sarea_priv_offset = sizeof(drm_sarea_t); The first member of drm_sarea_t should have been an offset to the private sarea. Doing it that way would automatically adjust if the size of drm_sarea_t is changed. Offset should have been filled in by the DRM driver. I don't see any code computing sizeof(drm_sarea_t) + sizeof(drm_xxx_sarea_t). What is getting stored in the SAREA page after the private area? -- Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idU88&alloc_id065&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
