Re: GGI and cli/sti in X

Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Sat, 28 Mar 1998 21:27:45 -0800 (PST)


On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Chris Evans wrote:
> > Quite frankly, I will continue to consider the "nuke the whole thing"
> > proponents to be of questionable intelligence until somebody shows me a
> > bug that is so fundamentally big that we'd better use a few tactical
> > warheads. So far people have shown me a lot of ants.
>
> Here's a "bug": the general concept of a user level program doing port
> hacks/iopl(3)/etc. It should not be allowed. If we get on theoretical
> highground we could moan about it being the kernel's responsibility to
> manage hardware. But I'm not going to whinge about that.

Oh. Even the GGI people agree that for performance we _have_ to do the IO
in user space. Taking the overhead of a system call is simply not even an
option.

What's the difference between mapping the frame buffer into user memory
and doing any other IO access?

> And finally, and I'll shout this: "IF ITS TRUE THE NEXT GENERATION OF
> VIDEO CARDS WILL HAVE NO TEXTMODE THEN THE KERNEL will NEED TO KNOW HOW TO
> CHANGE INTO A GFX MODE". Even if we use a VESA bios hack, that's still
> mode-setting code going into the Linux sources :)

Linux has had support for graphical cards for a LONG TIME!

I've been using a TGA card on my alpha, and the TGA doesn't even have a
character mode. We HAVE support for it. We just don't try to do anything
very clever in the kernel.

So stop shouting, it only shows your ignorance.

Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu