> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 06:46:52 -0700 > From: Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]> > > 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 > >> <[email protected]> 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 log when things go wrong), not a performance enhancement. > >>> I'm not yet persuaded that that feature is worth the identified effort. > >> I'd still like to hear some opinions from people who do serious > >> xserver work, but from my perspective there's nothing wrong with only > >> executing this code if -verbose is used. 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. > > > > Indeed. We already get a more accurate/useful device/vendor identifier > > string from the driver, and we don't need to know/care about non-GPU > > devices. > > > > I can see how it would be useful in verbose/error cases, but eh. > > if (verbose > normal) > system("scanpci >& Xorg.0.log"); > > Just have to add a rule to the libpciaccess Makefile.am to actually > install scanpci by default, but it should provide exactly the same > info as we were generating/logging from libpciaccess, since it uses > the same routines.
I don't think using system(3) would be a good idea, since it has some nasty side-effects. Also, this probably wouldn't work on OpenBSD where we have privilige separation, and the execution of scanpci would fail after we drop root priviliges. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
