Eric Anholt wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 05:57, Keith Whitwell wrote:
OK, now that the recycle lockup has been found fixed, I don't see any
problems with this patch. Has anyone got any objections to merging it to the
trunk?
Eric, do you think this will be impossible to support on bsd? It
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 00:51, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Eric Anholt wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 05:57, Keith Whitwell wrote:
OK, now that the recycle lockup has been found fixed, I don't see any
problems with this patch. Has anyone got any objections to merging it to the
trunk?
Eric,
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The _second_ DRI-enabled X startup caused problems, even if I had done
multiple non-DRI X sessions in between. This is what makes me think
that
the DRI kernel modules keep some history
On Mit, 2003-03-12 at 10:55, Keith Whitwell wrote:
In fact the lockup comes down to this one line:
--- radeon_driver.c 28 Oct 2002 02:21:14 - 1.44
+++ radeon_driver.c 29 Oct 2002 13:49:25 - 1.45
@@ -4639,6 +4639,7 @@
save-cap0_trig_cntl = 0;
OK, now that the recycle lockup has been found fixed, I don't see any
problems with this patch. Has anyone got any objections to merging it to the
trunk?
Eric, do you think this will be impossible to support on bsd? It seems to fix
some fundamental braino's in the orignal drm...
Keith
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:57:03PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
OK, now that the recycle lockup has been found fixed, I don't see any
problems with this patch. Has anyone got any objections to merging it to
the trunk?
FW(L)IW, you have my vote. As mentioned earlier, your filp work fixes
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 05:57, Keith Whitwell wrote:
OK, now that the recycle lockup has been found fixed, I don't see any
problems with this patch. Has anyone got any objections to merging it to the
trunk?
Eric, do you think this will be impossible to support on bsd? It seems to fix
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The _second_ DRI-enabled X startup caused problems, even if I had done
multiple non-DRI X sessions in between. This is what makes me think that
the DRI kernel modules keep some history around that they
On Die, 2003-03-11 at 14:41, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Evidence for this:
- The lockup is new, while the code has been suspicious forever...
- I can exit and restart X just fine, it's only recycle that locks.
From the kernel point of view, these should be
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The _second_ DRI-enabled X startup caused problems, even if I had done
multiple non-DRI X sessions in between. This is what makes me think that
the DRI kernel modules keep some history around that they shouldn't. And
maybe the
Hello,
It looks like there is different behavior if
you are using builtin radeon (and agpgart) instead
of using modules radeon.o and agpgart.o:
If I start X from command-line, exit session,
startx again, X and DRI seems to work fine, at least
there is no lockup. (radeon and agpgart as modul)
As I
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The _second_ DRI-enabled X startup caused problems, even if I had done
multiple non-DRI X sessions in between. This is what makes me think that
the DRI kernel modules keep some history around that they shouldn't. And
maybe the
Hello!
The radeon.o kernelmodule from the drm-filp-0-1-branch works well.
xmms with different opengl-based visual-plugins works, even with
vtxfmt enabled.
I activated, deactivated the plugins often and nothing bad happend:
no -22 and no bad entrys in /var/log/messages.
I got a segfault from xmms
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Andreas Stenglein wrote:
I pulled the powercable, waited, plugged the cable,
startet the box up again and tried without dri:
Xserver recycles well!
I have apparently seen something like this even on 2.5.x. What kernels
have you tried?
The symptoms I saw were kernel
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The _second_ DRI-enabled X startup caused problems, even if I had done
multiple non-DRI X sessions in between. This is what makes me think that
the DRI kernel modules keep some history around that they shouldn't. And
maybe the problem is hidden if
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 10:34:35 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Andreas Stenglein wrote:
I pulled the powercable, waited, plugged the cable,
startet the box up again and tried without dri:
Xserver recycles well!
I have apparently seen something
Am 2003.03.02 19:34:35 +0100 schrieb(en) Linus Torvalds:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Andreas Stenglein wrote:
I pulled the powercable, waited, plugged the cable,
startet the box up again and tried without dri:
Xserver recycles well!
I have apparently seen something like this even on 2.5.x. What
17 matches
Mail list logo
