<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> On 08/19/2010 03:05 PM, Gaetan Nadon wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:1282223108.3877.99.camel@ubuntu" type="cite"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="GtkHTML/3.26.0"> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 11:06 +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: <blockquote type="CITE"> <tt>Please push after fixing the commit message.</tt> </blockquote> Thanks for catching this. I won't push the second patch, both the current driver and the legacy driver are built in the same makefile. No harm done either way. I would think legacy code should be in a separate directory (vmwlegacy?) to isolate it from the current driver code. </blockquote> Thanks, Gaetan. Actually, the legacy code is most of the code. The current driver code is just a loader that loads either vmwlegacy_drv.so which is built with vmware_drv.so, or vmwgfx_drv.so which is built as part of the mesa distro, depending on wether it's possible to kick vmwgfx_drv.so off. I've nothing against vmware_drv.so and vmwgfx_drv.so being built in separate directories, though the current situation where they don't share the same version number is not optimal. They will probably share at least a version header in the future. /Thomas </body> </html>