> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:26:42 +0300 > From: "Vignatti Tiago (Nokia-MS/Helsinki)" <[email protected]> > > > And then you'd build the server such that either or both of those two > > functions is #define'd to 0. Which we kind of already do for SIGIO > > except it's a stub function instead of a #define. If you do that then > > you can make the malloc failure in t_i_r_d not a FatalError, although > > you'd need to make any input from main thread take the mutex. > > Yep, makes sense. However Peter mentioned a good point: that drivers > will want to know if the server is assuming thread or SIGIO, mostly > to do malloc tricks I guess. So we may want to just drop off the > SIGIO code for once and enable always the threaded coded. > > I'm wondering how this sounds for other platforms (I'm coding in Linux) and > other DDX. Alan, Mark Kettenis, Jon Turney and others?
I'm sceptical about this. For one thing OpenBSD has a userland threads library. This mostly works, but it has some nasty side-effects because the library switches all file descriptors in non-blocking mode. This is especially nasty if you use fork(2), which the X server does. And of course threaded code is an order of magnitude more difficult to debug than non-threaded code. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
