Re: [PATCH libX11] xcb_io: Fix Xlib 32-bit request number issues

[Christian Linhart]

Hi Jan, Can you please repost your patch together with a description of the problem and your approach to fix it. I was not subscribed to that list back when you have posted it, and so may some others, who may be able to move this thing forward. You may also post a link to the specific mails/threads in the mailinglist-archives if that'll help with understanding your patch. I'll look at that then. I have some other issues with sequence numbers, and I think we need to solve that on a design level. The essential thing is that the protocol transports only 16-bit sequence numbers, but server and client work with at least 32-bit, sometimes 64-bit sequence numbers. What I've seen so far in the code looks like heuristics which may fail in some cases. Maybe I am missing something. In any case, I want to see your problem analysis and your proposed fix before I propose something. Chris On 11/04/14 13:14, Jan Smout wrote: I already forked it for myself a couple of months ago. As long as I control the packages which get installed on the machines I have no real issue... except for an uncomfortable feeling that if things like this don't get fixed, what other dragons might be hiding deep down in the xlib library? Now, when somebody would want to run the application on their own install, that's where the shit hits the fan. I'll be forced to tell them to downgrade their xlib to 1.3.3 and file a complaint on this list :-) On 4 November 2014 10:49, Alexander E. Patrakov <patra...@gmail.com> wrote: Just fork it. I am sure that such antisocial step is the only way forward, because I also have a patch that was not looked at for too long, and then rejected because it breaks keystone correction (which was broken in a different way before the patch). 04.11.2014 13:23, Jan Smout wrote: and again... reminder... On 28 October 2014 12:51, Jan Smout <smout....@gmail.com> wrote: reminder... On 21 October 2014 12:49, Jan Smout <smout....@gmail.com> wrote: Keith, we are approaching the one year anniversary of this bug already. Maybe it is time to finish the patch and leave the issue behind? fyi, I have been running my application with the first version of Jonas's patch for 65 days straight now without a glitch (it used to crash in less than 20 hours). I also intend to restart this long duration test once the final patch will be released On 27 September 2014 05:23, Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> wrote: Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:40 AM, Jan Smout <smout....@gmail.com> wrote: >> Keith Packard doesn't seem very responsive (as in 'completely ignoring the >> subject') > > Perhaps you should try Ccing him? (now Cc'd) The problem is that reviewing this patch is *really hard*. The last time, I think I spent a solid couple of days thinking about this and making sure I'd caught all of the cases. I'm still not sure it's right, but I guess it's probably better than what we have? -- keith.pack...@intel.com -- Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part. -- Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part. -- Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part. _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel -- Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part. _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel