On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 09:29:33PM +0200, ext Aaron Plattner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:19:49PM -0700, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 12:12 -0700, Aaron Plattner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 09:49:05AM -0700, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > hw/xfree86/os-support/shared/sigio.c | 11 -----------
> > > > hw/xfree86/os-support/shared/sigiostubs.c | 5 -----
> > > > hw/xfree86/os-support/xf86_OSproc.h | 1 -
> > > > 3 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > We use these asserts in the nvidia driver to make sure that SIGIO is
> > > properly blocked around code that touches the display engine. It would be
> > > a shame to lose this, but we could roll our own checks if you really think
> > > these need to be removed.
> >
> > Fair enough, though I'm curious what that's caught.
>
> Due to quirks in our hardware, we need to prevent cursor changes during
> modesets. The asserts catch internal bugs where we don't do that. That's
> why I said we can roll our own if we have to, we just have to then identify
> exactly which pieces of code can be called from the signal handler.
can't you call xf86BlockSIGIO before modesets and release after then?
Tiago
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
