Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 22:56:45 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> Cc: Matthew Macy <mmacy@nextbsd.org>, "freebsd-x11@freebsd.org" <freebsd-x11@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: drm-next update and longer term plans Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmokx78oGYtUSPa3oAo_O58p0LpaFfBUbntMDdn5T9zik1g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1sTaGbqiq9U=jO19h2gE7Kk-hk7LLhqQrwv=V%2BeNJF5Lg@mail.gmail.com> References: <158bc7db990.e5ab7400189889.2067341649206744373@nextbsd.org> <CAN6yY1sTaGbqiq9U=jO19h2gE7Kk-hk7LLhqQrwv=V%2BeNJF5Lg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, The challenge right now is figuring out how to implement / commit the linux-y bits that the linux layer really wants. Kip has done a pretty great job at figuring out the minimum set of hilarity that needs to go into base versus linuxkpi. But the "challenge" is figuring out some comprimise between what's done and what we can do in FreeBSD land. Those changes are small but unfortunately change the expectations we have. If someone's willing to step up and help out with the linuxkpi side of things and the base system bits (the new lock, some UMA changes, some VM changes, the interrupt model that we have versus linux and what we're allowed to do, etc, etc) then that'll really help. I can help try to get stuff reviewed and help people know where some of the quirky controversial bits are, but I don't have the cycles to modify/rewrite any of it all to land in -HEAD. I need some help with that. If you're interested in helping out and can take some direction then sign up and we'll figure the bits out. Thanks! -adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmokx78oGYtUSPa3oAo_O58p0LpaFfBUbntMDdn5T9zik1g>