Minor note: The DRI is already very similar to SGI's graphics
architecture. The differences are driven by two issues:
1. Reluctance in the kernel community to make the nontrivial
changes to the scheduler, VM system, and MP process migration
code that would be necessary in order to do things exactly
like SGI does them.
2. Inability of nearly all PC graphics hardware to support full
virtualization of access from user space.
Presumably these would be issues for James's work, too. I'm not
familiar with it, though I believe Rik Faith is keeping an eye on it.
Eventually more PC graphics hardware will be fully virtualizable,
and the Linux community will have enough experience wth the problems
to decide how the kernel should be extended. The DRI is designed to
evolve straightforwardly as this occurs.
Allen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/