From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751166AbWFBDBm (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 23:01:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751167AbWFBDBm (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 23:01:42 -0400 Received: from smtp.enter.net ([216.193.128.24]:49168 "EHLO smtp.enter.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751166AbWFBDBl (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 23:01:41 -0400 From: "D. Hazelton" To: "Jon Smirl" Subject: Re: OpenGL-based framebuffer concepts Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 23:01:31 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 Cc: "Dave Airlie" , "Ondrej Zajicek" , "Pavel Machek" , "Alan Cox" , "Kyle Moffett" , "Manu Abraham" , "linux cbon" , "Helge Hafting" , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, adaplas@gmail.com References: <20060519224056.37429.qmail@web26611.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <200606012234.31566.dhazelton@enter.net> <9e4733910606011958k5906117cl9ca18ddbaf9c3cc5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9e4733910606011958k5906117cl9ca18ddbaf9c3cc5@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200606012301.32197.dhazelton@enter.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 02 June 2006 02:58, Jon Smirl wrote: > On 6/1/06, D. Hazelton wrote: > > VT switch to a VT where X is running. X will still require a VT and > > assume it has good access to the graphics system. While currently it has > > no problems, when drmcon becomes a reality there will have to be a state > > switch between the consoles settings and the setting for the VT running > > X. > > > > > > 14) backwards compatible, an old X server should still run on a new > > > > kernel. I will allow for new options to be enabled at run-time so > > > > that this isn't possible, but just booting a kernel and starting X > > > > should work. > > > > > > I'm not sure we want to continue supporting every X server released in > > > the last 25 years. But we should definitely support any X server > > > released in a 2.6 based kernel distribution. What are reasonable > > > limits? > > > > This is not a supportable position, Jon. I haven't seen it myself, but > > I'm willing to bet there are still a few systems out there running X5 but > > have a recent kernel. Since X version prior to 6 are no longer in wide > > use, however, this is something that could be done with little damage to > > anyone. > > > > But it still breaks the spirit of Linus' directive to "break nothing" > > I don't know if break nothing applies to operating systems > masquerading as applications. "Break nothing" works both ways. Old X > servers are doing things like messing with the PCI bus that breaks new > kernels. > > Use some common sense here, who would update to a 2006 kernel and keep > running an X server from 1989? Pick a reasonable limit and say the > rest are unsupported. Why make a pile of work for yourself that no > sane person is ever going to make use of. > > Remember, an X server from 1989 only contains drivers for hardware > from 1989 and earlier. Can 2.6 Linux boot on a 1989 PC with an 8514 > graphics card? Does it support running in 640K with an AboveBoard? > Does anyone even remember what an AboveBoard did? Okay, okay. Point taken. And note that I did state that X versions prior to 6 (hell, AFAIK, prior to 6.5) aren't in any widespread use. And the Elks version of Linux could run a 1989 system. Not that I think these changes will make it into Elks, but... DRH