Reply With Quote
I'm actually all for this. Why maintain outdated legacy code that doesn't run as efficiently as the newer stuff? Getting rid of DRI1 and EXA should also mean more time diverted into maintaining and fixing DRI2 and UXA.
Intel Releases New Driver, Kills EXA/DRI1
Phoronix: Intel Releases New Driver, Kills EXA/DRI1
It was just two weeks ago that Intel released its xf86-video-intel 2.7 driver, but there is already a new test release that will lead up to the release of the xf86-video-intel 2.8 series. Normally it is two or three months before a new test release is available for Intel's quarterly Linux graphics driver update, but that is not the case with their Q3'09 stack. Less than a week ago we shared that Intel is looking to drop EXA support in favor of their UMA Acceleration Architecture (UXA) as well as stripping out compatibility for the older DRI1 infrastructure...
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzIzNQ
I'm actually all for this. Why maintain outdated legacy code that doesn't run as efficiently as the newer stuff? Getting rid of DRI1 and EXA should also mean more time diverted into maintaining and fixing DRI2 and UXA.
I am sure that there are still lots of bugs left in UXA, but probably several of those are not really reported yet. "Forcing" the users to use UXA leads to at least some reporting the bugs which will eventually lead to those bugs being fixed (Devs can only fix what they know is broken!). So yeah, IMO it is a good step to remove the old legacy code even though it will lead to some problems and complaints in the short term.
Will this driver make it into 9.04 updates?
No, Jaunty is tracking 2.6 series... Not even 2.7. So 2.8 will not make it in.Originally Posted by ethana2
Ah. Onward to 9.10 then!
Devs can also only fix what they have time to fix. Perhaps we have to draw the conclusion that Intel developers have too much time on their hands so they're begging for new things to fix.
That implies some false things. I'd say more like the opposite of that..Devs can also only fix what they have time to fix. Perhaps we have to draw the conclusion that Intel developers have too much time on their hands so they're begging for new things to fix.
Well, if you drop the mostly stable acceleration method (EXA) in favour of a raw acceleration method (UXA), what else would it be than trying to ask people to find you new bugs in raw acceleration method?
They're dropping an old, buggy acceleration method for a modern and maintainable acceleration method. The whole point of this is to have less bugs to take care of.
Posting Permissions
