On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 03:46:43PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote: > The series implements SET_CAP as a per _file_ capability set, not per > master. I like it this way. Note that with SET_VERSION, we already > have a per _master_ capability set. Compared to SET_CAP it only allows > incremental capability changes, but that's fine I think. > > However, the problem with per-master capabilities (SET_VERSION) is > that we currently have no way to control which master a > graphics-server gets assigned to. If it's started in background, it > will get the same master as the foreground compositor. Therefore, we > don't want per-master client-capabilities. It's wrong and breaks > existing setups (same as SET_VERSION, and everyone knows that). I also > don't see a reason to bind capabilities to a master object. > > SET_CAP describes what the *calling client* understands and can work > with. And this is logically bound to drm_file (as it represents a > client). On the other hand, GET_CAP describes what the *device* > understands and provides. This is obviously bound to a "drm_device". A > "drm_master" object allows to split GET_CAP capabilities and resources > across multiple logical master objects. But these resemble a > drm_device much more than a drm_file. > > So no, this capability is not dropped with a change in master. It's > independent of the active/bound master. It just describes what a > client sees or not sees. Right, that sums it up. Note that while I've made stereo_allowed a per fd thing (which is what I wanted in that case, alter the reality viewed by the process opening the file), SET_CAP itself it marked as master only. This can be changed in the future to provide per-cap access restrictions if needed. -- Damien _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
