Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> writes: > On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 18:04:54 -0700, tom fogal <tfo...@sci.utah.edu> wrote: > > More background: > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/mesa3d-...@lists.sourceforge.net/msg12473.html > > http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2009-November/003411.html > > > > This is just the export, we don't autodetect it yet. > > What is this patch for? According to the second mail quoted, a TLS > loader works for both TLS and non-TLS drivers -- that is to say, > the X Server's loader should always default to having TLS support,
It's vaguely alluded to in this mail, too, which I probably should have linked: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2009-November/003361.html but also Dan mentions in the first link that if we start TLS-ing all of our drivers arbitrarily, it's going to break w/ X because X doesn't do the autodetection currently. Now that you make me re-read, this seems to be at odds with Ian's comments about a TLS-server supporting both TLS and non-TLS drivers. Am I missing something? > regardless of whether the (probably not yet built) drivers are built > for it. Having the Mesa build follow the X Server in terms of using > TLS by default would make sense to me, though. Yeah, but as you mention ... Mesa can't follow the X server because the X server isn't built yet. Yes, I agree that if a TLS-X can load TLS-drivers *and* no-TLS-drivers, then X should autodetect TLS and enable it whenever possible, since it's arguably better. Then we can make Mesa do the same, and it shouldn't be a big deal. Ajax/Dan's comments give me pause about being aggressive in the X server, though. I can say that my long term goal is to get *Mesa* more aggressive about enabling TLS, in an X-free universe. I have users using OSMesa who get bit when SELinux is enabled, and I want it to work "out of the box." -tom _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
