> From: Matt Turner <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:04:26 -0700 > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Thomas Klausner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:02:56AM -0700, Matt Turner wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Thomas Klausner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > libdrm-2.4.37 added a use of ETIME (from errno(3)) in > >> > intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c. > >> > > >> > This errno is not defined on (at least) DragonFly BSD. > >> > > >> > A Linux man page for errno(3) says: > >> > ETIME Timer expired (POSIX.1 (XSI STREAMS option)) > >> > (POSIX.1 says "STREAM ioctl(2) timeout") > >> > > >> > Since this errno is only defined for a POSIX extension, wouldn't it > >> > make more sense to use the standard errno(3) ETIMEDOUT instead which > >> > exists in more environments? > >> > Thomas > >> > >> Does DragonFly BSD have Intel KMS? > > > > Not yet, but I don't see how this is relevant, because the file is > > compiled on DragonFly BSD independent of that question. Can you please > > explain? > > Thomas > > I was asking mostly out of curiosity, but at the same time I don't > think compiling this (libdrm_intel) is useful without KMS.
Don't think it is KMS that matters here, but rather DRM/GEM support. We have the latter in OpenBSD, and do build an older version of libdrm, and I'm pretty sure that I've seen it used by applications. > Sorry for sort of off-topic. No idea about ETIME vs ETIMEDOUT. OpenBSD doesn't ETIME either, so ETIMEDOUT defenitely seems more portable to me. To be honest though, having a function return -EANYTHING outside of the Linux kernel doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me. If all that matters is that the return value is negative, simply returning -1 might make more sense. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
