Thanks for reviewing! (And thanks to Alex and Jeremy for this round of reviews too!)
I don't quite understand your comments on this patch, though, Tiago. On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Vignatti Tiago (Nokia-MS/Helsinki) <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> First, I don't understand this use of signed-off-by. Did you mean reviewed-by? > 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. > 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? Jamey _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
