* X unlock bug revisited
@ 2003-05-06 15:50 Bill Davidsen
2003-05-06 15:18 ` Alan Cox
2003-05-06 15:56 ` Randy.Dunlap
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Bill Davidsen @ 2003-05-06 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List
Some months ago I noted that a new kernel introduced a failure to be able
to unlock X after locking. Still there in 2.5.69 for RH 7.2, 7.3, and 8.0.
Is there any plan to address whatever causes this problem with a kernel
fix, or is a 2.4 kernel still the way to go if you need to lock X. I
realize many developers work in environments where there's no need.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: X unlock bug revisited
2003-05-06 15:50 X unlock bug revisited Bill Davidsen
@ 2003-05-06 15:18 ` Alan Cox
2003-05-06 15:56 ` Randy.Dunlap
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2003-05-06 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bill Davidsen; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Maw, 2003-05-06 at 16:50, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Some months ago I noted that a new kernel introduced a failure to be able
> to unlock X after locking. Still there in 2.5.69 for RH 7.2, 7.3, and 8.0.
Its a pam bug triggered by the subtle scheduling timing changes and
fixed in Red Hat 9
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: X unlock bug revisited
2003-05-06 15:50 X unlock bug revisited Bill Davidsen
2003-05-06 15:18 ` Alan Cox
@ 2003-05-06 15:56 ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-05-06 17:59 ` jjs
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2003-05-06 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bill Davidsen; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Tue, 6 May 2003 11:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote:
| Some months ago I noted that a new kernel introduced a failure to be able
| to unlock X after locking. Still there in 2.5.69 for RH 7.2, 7.3, and 8.0.
|
| Is there any plan to address whatever causes this problem with a kernel
| fix, or is a 2.4 kernel still the way to go if you need to lock X. I
| realize many developers work in environments where there's no need.
This still bites me when I use xscreensaver, so I just use the KDE
screen saver/locker instead. Eventually the pain level will be too
much, though.
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: X unlock bug revisited
2003-05-06 15:56 ` Randy.Dunlap
@ 2003-05-06 17:59 ` jjs
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: jjs @ 2003-05-06 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux kernel; +Cc: Randy.Dunlap
Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>On Tue, 6 May 2003 11:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote:
>
>| Some months ago I noted that a new kernel introduced a failure to be able
>| to unlock X after locking. Still there in 2.5.69 for RH 7.2, 7.3, and 8.0.
>|
>| Is there any plan to address whatever causes this problem with a kernel
>| fix, or is a 2.4 kernel still the way to go if you need to lock X. I
>| realize many developers work in environments where there's no need.
>
>This still bites me when I use xscreensaver, so I just use the KDE
>screen saver/locker instead. Eventually the pain level will be too
>much, though.
>
FWIW, I had this problem with late 2.5 kernels
on my 8.0 boxes - after upgrading to RH 9, the
xscreensaver unlocks properly when running
2.5 kernels -
Apparently the xscreensaver shipped with RH
9 contains the fixes - perhaps needed for their
kernel which contains backported 2.5 features?
Smarter folks than me may know more...
Joe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-06 17:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-05-06 15:50 X unlock bug revisited Bill Davidsen
2003-05-06 15:18 ` Alan Cox
2003-05-06 15:56 ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-05-06 17:59 ` jjs
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox