Stereo 3D v3

[Chris Wilson]

On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 04:03:52PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> 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.

This could be renamed to SET_CLIENT_CAP and also drop the master
requirement. (That some capabilities only affect master ioctls is
irrelevant I think, as the client will be master at that time.)
That would reduce the confusion between the device caps and the session
caps.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre