From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Ari Entlich <atrigent@ccs.neu.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.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
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:56:46 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100222145646.27f1f135.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5702371.144261266590275669.JavaMail.root@zimbra>
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:37:55 -0500 (EST) Ari Entlich <atrigent@ccs.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.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-22 22:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <33024815.144191266590249679.JavaMail.root@zimbra>
2010-02-19 14:37 ` [PATCH v2] Add a new VT mode which is like VT_PROCESS but doesn't require a VT_RELDISP ioctl call Ari Entlich
2010-02-22 22:56 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
[not found] <8748337.196941266894473447.JavaMail.root@zimbra>
2010-02-23 3:17 ` Ari Entlich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100222145646.27f1f135.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=atrigent@ccs.neu.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.