Hi,
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 04:44:50PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
I don't think using system(3) would be a good idea, since it has some
nasty side-effects.
That's how UNIX works. If it has nasty side-effects, then something else
is broken.
Also, this probably wouldn't work on OpenBSD where
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 06:46:52 -0700
From: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
Daniel Stone wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 09:40:55PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Richard Barnette
jrbarne...@chromium.org wrote:
Still, cost/benefit matters here:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 09:40:55PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Richard Barnette
jrbarne...@chromium.org wrote:
Still, cost/benefit matters here: Essentially, the justification
for all this work is a debug feature (being able to print the information
in the
MG == Mikhail Gusarov dotted...@dottedmag.net writes:
MG Oh, that's _the_ right question. Looks like only for writing names to
MG log (unless I missed some access to the data structure while
MG grepping). Well, not really useful to trade for 400ms of startup :)
That info should remain available
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 09:40:55PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Richard Barnette
jrbarne...@chromium.org wrote:
Still, cost/benefit matters here: Essentially, the justification
for all
Daniel Stone wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 09:40:55PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Richard Barnette
jrbarne...@chromium.org wrote:
Still, cost/benefit matters here: Essentially, the justification
for all this work is a debug feature (being able to print the
JC == James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com writes:
MG == Mikhail Gusarov dotted...@dottedmag.net writes:
MG Oh, that's _the_ right question. Looks like only for writing names to
MG log (unless I missed some access to the data structure while
MG grepping). Well, not really useful to trade for 400ms of
2010/6/9 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 09:40:55PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Richard Barnette
jrbarne...@chromium.org wrote:
Still, cost/benefit matters
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 07:16:48AM -0400, James Cloos wrote:
MG == Mikhail Gusarov dotted...@dottedmag.net writes:
MG Oh, that's _the_ right question. Looks like only for writing names to
MG log (unless I missed some access to the data structure while
MG grepping). Well, not really useful
In a recent investigation of system boot time for Chromium OS, I
discovered that an inordinate amount of time during X server startup
was going to processing required for pci_device_get_vendor_name() and
pci_device_get_device_name(). The reason is straightforward: these
routines operate by
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 14:26:32 -0700, Richard Barnette wrote:
In a recent investigation of system boot time for Chromium OS, I
discovered that an inordinate amount of time during X server startup
was going to processing required for pci_device_get_vendor_name() and
Twas brillig at 14:26:32 08.06.2010 UTC-07 when jrbarne...@chromium.org
did gyre and gimble:
RB I'd like advice/opinions on which of these might be the most eagerly
RB embraced (or at any rate, least vigorously opposed :-) ), or whether
RB there's a better idea I've overlooked.
The Right
Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
Twas brillig at 14:26:32 08.06.2010 UTC-07 when jrbarne...@chromium.org
did gyre and gimble:
RB I'd like advice/opinions on which of these might be the most eagerly
RB embraced (or at any rate, least vigorously opposed :-) ), or whether
RB there's a better idea I've
On Jun 8, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
[ ... ]
I'd like fix this with a patch to X upstream, so that the change
doesn't
have to be maintained as part of the Chromium OS sources. For a
first
cut, I can think of three obvious approaches:
* Change xorg-server to simply drop the
On Jun 8, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
Twas brillig at 14:26:32 08.06.2010 UTC-07 when
jrbarne...@chromium.org
did gyre and gimble:
RB I'd like advice/opinions on which of these might be the most
eagerly
RB embraced (or at any rate, least vigorously opposed :-) ), or
On Jun 8, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Mike Travis wrote:
Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
Twas brillig at 14:26:32 08.06.2010 UTC-07 when jrbarne...@chromium.org
did gyre and gimble:
RB I'd like advice/opinions on which of these might be the most
eagerly
RB embraced (or at any rate, least vigorously opposed
Twas brillig at 15:55:59 08.06.2010 UTC-07 when jrbarne...@chromium.org
did gyre and gimble:
The Right Thing that immediately comes to mind is fixing
libpciaccess internals to be able to read data from saner (indexed,
string-compressed, with common strings merged for different PCI ids)
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 06:37:43AM +0700, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
RB I've considered this, too. I think it's substantially more work,
RB and I'd worry that the cost/benefit ratio wasn't very good. I
RB suspect the best way to thread the needle would include fiddling
RB with the pciutils
On Jun 8, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Greg KH wrote:
[ ... ]
It's basically the cache discussed in another thread, expanded to
contain all entries from pci.ids :) Hence the amount of work should
be
approximately the same.
Ok, I'm coming in late, but why in the world would the x server ever
care about
Twas brillig at 17:04:59 08.06.2010 UTC-07 when g...@kroah.com did gyre and
gimble:
GK Ok, I'm coming in late, but why in the world would the x server
GK ever care about the pci.ids file? Why would the mapping from id to
GK string be needed anywhere here?
Oh, that's _the_ right question.
On Jun 8, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
Twas brillig at 17:04:59 08.06.2010 UTC-07 when g...@kroah.com did
gyre and gimble:
GK Ok, I'm coming in late, but why in the world would the x server
GK ever care about the pci.ids file? Why would the mapping from id
to
GK string be
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Richard Barnette
jrbarne...@chromium.org wrote:
On Jun 8, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
Twas brillig at 17:04:59 08.06.2010 UTC-07 when g...@kroah.com did gyre
and gimble:
GK Ok, I'm coming in late, but why in the world would the x server
GK ever
On Jun 8, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Younes Manton wrote:
[ ... ]
One other option I've considered is to only extract the data if the
-verbose option is used. The problem I see is that while the calls
in xf86pciBus.c lend themselves readily to that solution, the calls
in xf86Configure.c aren't as
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
The output of `lspci -vv` is already a nearly required piece of any
bug report,
so I don't think we're losing anything here.
I agree. I have debugged several PCI card problems over the years and I have
always needed to
24 matches
Mail list logo
