On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 10:09:44PM +0200, Felix Kühling wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:59:08 +0100 > José Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > > > Felix, please try the patch attached. I'm also gonna see if I can > > Ok, I will apply it. But since the errors were very rare, it will take > some time to be sure. Is there a way to make a patch that can print a
I know... Have no hurry! > log message when a transient idle is generated in a situation when it > shoudn't and try to recover from it the way your patch does? Then if one > sees such a message and the programme didn't crash one could be sure. > As is now, not really.. unless one polls the value a little waiting for a transient value, but it's not very pratical. Just leave the patch in your tree - if nothing happens after some weeks of regular use is enough. Anyway, I think I can reproduce the problem on my testbox by letting the UT demo running alone some hours, so I hope to have a more definite answer soon. > > reproduce it (by the look of its webpages, TORCS seems a nice way to > > spend sometime ;-). I'll also redo the other "extra safety check" that > > was failing before on my system to see if it goes away too. > > Yeah, it's a nice programme, but I get only between 8 and 13 fps at > 640x480. > Hey! I didn't made the chip! I just helped on the drivers! ;-) José Fonseca ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
