Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:55:21 -0700 From: Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> Cc: Matthew Macy <mmacy@nextbsd.org>, Oded Shanoon <odeds@mellanox.com>, Meny Yossefi <menyy@mellanox.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Edward_Tomasz_Napiera=C5=82a?= <trasz@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-x11@freebsd.org" <freebsd-x11@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Enabling OFED by default. Message-ID: <CAG6CVpXqVZD9-7skuA8bxCqN%2B-5rQ9er8jPs-No5WPONN2RVuA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <36219e68-a6cd-de7c-f318-b6a65543a087@selasky.org> References: <20160211205358.GA3567@brick.home> <56D811B3.6090406@selasky.org> <20160305155620.GB2512@brick.home> <56DC00EA.7050900@selasky.org> <20160523102055.GA2891@brick> <fc2630f9-dd10-5640-2ce2-a4a3feb6962a@selasky.org> <1556f5196ad.cc101c73136103.7671428586181101222@nextbsd.org> <36219e68-a6cd-de7c-f318-b6a65543a087@selasky.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> wrote: > On 06/20/16 21:37, Matthew Macy wrote: >> >> Do not enable in tree linuxkpi by default. It will definitely interfere >> with out of tree graphics work, which would harm far far more users than it >> benefits. > > The final goal should be to make the DRM2 LinuxKPI an extension of the > kernel's LinuxKPI so that they can co-exist. This doesn't really make sense. Some of the LinuxKPI changes needed for DRM2 are bugfixes of existing LinuxKPI code. If it was only extensions to the existing APIs, maybe they could be layered. But I don't think anyone considers existing LinuxKPI code completely bug-free. Best, Conrad
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAG6CVpXqVZD9-7skuA8bxCqN%2B-5rQ9er8jPs-No5WPONN2RVuA>