Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: NVIDIA Tries To Put Fence Sync Into X Server 1.10

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falloutboy View Post
    I didn't say unstable, I said unUSable and was not trolling. If api calls are designed to exclude closed source driver, then you know who isn't friendly to whom...
    Which API calls are designed to exclude closed source drivers?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Ya that's generally how it is.
    but why ? why they need to fight nvidia ?

    me for my point i just do not buy nvidia hardware but do not try to hurt nvidia in that way..

    maybe the FOSS buys should stop fight again nvidia on nvidia hardware and they really should buy amd hardware

    i really should send Linus an email "buy amd hardware you noob."

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falloutboy View Post
    I didn't say unstable, I said unUSable and was not trolling. If api calls are designed to exclude closed source driver, then you know who isn't friendly to whom...
    I can't speak out of experience about the Xorg API, but at least from the kernel's prospective, you have no idea what you're talking about.
    I'm leading a team that develops a fairly large non-GPL software that runs inside the Linux kernel. Much like the nVidia driver, our software is cross-platform and uses a thin and well-established layer that separates the logic layer from the kernel-support layer.
    I should add that our software uses far more API's than the nVidia driver on one hand (E.g. I/O, files, networking, etc) while doing far less fancy memory management footwork on the other. (Plus, we are 1/5 the size of their module)

    Based on your post, it should be safe to assume that we spend most of our time tracking upstream kernel API changes, but in real life, we rarely spend more than an hour or two when an API does change (once every ~3 kernel releases) - and as I said, we use -far- -far- more API's than the nVidia driver.

    As I said, I don't have experience with Xorg APIs, so I can't really comment outside my domain, but based on my own experience and the API's that I use, the talk about unstable APIs making life difficult for out-of-tree kernel developers is pure FUD.

    And yes, from time to time we do face functions that are GPL-only (and cannot be used by us) - forcing us to develop our own code (E.g. we have our own module loading facility as several symbol loading facility). However, unlike you, I understand the rules of the game: The Linux kernel was designed for in-kernel OSS development and not out-of-tree proprietary kernel development. If I -choose- to live outside the tree and develop non-GPL kernel module, I must also accept the fact that certain functionality is limited or missing and that it's well within the right of the Linux kernel community to prefer OSS in-tree kernel development over me. As the saying goes: Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

    - Gilboa
    P.S. Windows API changes are usually far more invasive, and require far more work (And yes, service packs can break working kernel code).
    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX780, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2412..
    BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    624

    Default

    P.S. if you read this [1] interview, you'll notice that nVidia is not really concerned about kernel API changes. (Even if they don't like the API's)

    1) The lack of a stable API in the Linux kernel. This is not a large obstacle for us, though: the kernel interface layer of the NVIDIA kernel module is distributed as source code, and compiled at install time for the version and configuration of the kernel in use. This requires occasional maintenance to update for new kernel interface changes, but generally is not too much work.

    That said, the kernel API churn sometimes seems unfortunate: in some cases, working interfaces are broken or replaced with broken ones for no seemingly good reason. In some other cases, APIs that were previously available to us are rendered unusable.
    [1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...qa_linux&num=7

    - Gilboa
    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX780, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2412..
    BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    but why ? why they need to fight nvidia ?
    Politics over practicality, developers wants over end user wants. Why do they have to fight them, they don't, but they choose to because nvidias offering is unpure to them.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    367

    Default

    I think with APIs that lock out closed-source drivers people in general mean DRM and/or KMS stuff.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brent View Post
    I think with APIs that lock out closed-source drivers people in general mean DRM and/or KMS stuff.
    Care to share some examples?
    (Beyond the symbol management API's that are GPL-only for obvious reason - they can be used to let a non-GPL modules force-load GPL-only symbols)

    - Gilboa
    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX780, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2412..
    BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Politics over practicality, developers wants over end user wants. Why do they have to fight them, they don't, but they choose to because nvidias offering is unpure to them.
    the better way is just Ignor nvidia in any kind of ways

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    the better way is just Ignor nvidia in any kind of ways
    No, a "better way" is to work together regardless of personal opinion, politics, and ideologies for the greater good of the end user whom more then likely don't care about how it is done but the end result is providing a product that does what the end user wants it to do.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    No, a "better way" is to work together regardless of personal opinion, politics, and ideologies for the greater good of the end user whom more then likely don't care about how it is done but the end result is providing a product that does what the end user wants it to do.
    what is the basement of "work together" ?? there are just enemys the best they can do is ignore the others

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •