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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox