> Over a long time it has been proven that this methodology is a good way to effect business change to align with the community consensus development model - eventually the costs of being out of tree have bad ROI and companies align. Agree. The key question is when will nVidia upstream it's drivers so companies don't have to endure the resulting "bad ROI" of being forced to have unique out of tree solutions. > > Putting a bunch of misaligned structures and random reserved fields > > *is* garbage by the upstream standard and if I send that to Linus > > I'll get yelled at. Let's not overexaggerate this. The fields we're organized in a logical manner for end user consumption and understanding. A couple resv fields were used for alignment. I alluded to the fact we may have some ideas on how those fields or gaps could be used for GPU support in the future and this might help deal with the lack of upstream nVidia code and reduce the ROI challenges for other vendors which that causes. The discussion seemed centered around the attach parameters, attach is executed once per process at job start. Todd
