On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:58:15AM -0500, Nathan J. Williams wrote:
> So they were. Is that a problem? I see the point of this exercise as
> improving -current in preparation for the next release, not in
> rototilling old release branches.

Agreed.

> Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui@ceres.dti.ne.jp> writes:
> > - IMHO, these ioctls (taken from OpenBSD?) seem really stupid.
> >   I think we should have more generic ioctl which returns whole info
> >   about MI rasops(9), which includes screen size, bitmap vaddr
> >   for mmap(), depth, and stride etc. rather than limited ioctls for
> >   LINEBYTES, DUMB or so.

I would like to see this done.  It makes sense to put stuff into
a single structure and have a single ioctl(2) to retrieve it.  As
Nathan said, it's been proposed before.  I think it's time to do
it.

-allen

-- 
 Allen Briggs                     briggs@wasabisystems.com
 Wasabi Systems, Inc.             http://www.wasabisystems.com/