On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 19:27, Peter Surda wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:33:51AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > Yes, exactly. But this test fails if buf->pid == 0, which is wrong.
> > No. As you say, 0 isn't a valid pid,
> ... which means the buffer is unused and the test should fail.
Read
On Son, 2002-01-27 at 19:41, Peter Surda wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 06:03:42PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> > > The first one definitely wasn't correct. A process of pid 0 doesn't exist, but
> > > it has been handled as if it existed.
> > The test ( buf->pid != current->pid ) isn't there
[ I assume you meant to follow up to the list as well ]
On Sam, 2002-01-26 at 19:15, Peter Surda wrote:
> > > So I looked at the code: pid 0 doesn't exist, and r128 driver seems to be
> > > using it for optimizing searches for free buffer. So I added a
> > > "buf->pid > 0 &&"
> [cut]
>
> > >
On Sam, 2002-01-26 at 06:13, Peter Surda wrote:
> Sorry that I'm not sending a patch, but I don't know if my solution is
> correct.
A patch might help to make a judgement. ;)
> Problem description (both with dri from CVS dri and CVS gatos): on r128 when I
> KDE is starting, display is corrupt
