[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100222145646.27f1f135.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:56:46 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ari Entlich <atrigent@....neu.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add a new VT mode which is like VT_PROCESS but
doesn't require a VT_RELDISP ioctl call
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:37:55 -0500 (EST) Ari Entlich <atrigent@....neu.edu> wrote:
> This new VT mode (VT_PROCESS_AUTO) does everything that VT_PROCESS does
> except that it doesn't wait for a VT_RELDISP ioctl before switching
> away from a VT with that mode.
>
> If the X server eventually uses this new mode, debugging and crash
> recovery should become easier. This is because even when currently in
> the VT of a frozen X server it would still be possible to switch out
> by doing SysRq-r and then CTRL-<number of a text vt>, sshing in and
> doing chvt <number of a text vt>, or any other method of VT switching.
> The general concensus on #xorg-devel seems to be that it should be
> safe to use this with X now that we have KMS.
Well, it "should" become easier, but does it? Has anyone patched their
X server to confirm that this kernel change improves things? I'm
wondering how this change was tested?
Is there a plan to get the X server modified to use VT_PROCESS_AUTO?
> This also moves the VT_ACKACQ define to a more appropriate place,
> for clarity's sake.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists