Hi, On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Jasper St. Pierre <jstpie...@mecheye.net> wrote: > ... Why does displayfd imply nolock? It doesn't really matter why it implies, nolock, I guess. The issue at hand is that it does (and always has) implied nolock. You can't fix that without breaking things that rely on it being nolock (like mutter).
> I consider the .X0-lock files an API that we shouldn't break. Boat's already sailed on this one. X server already supports a number of modes that don't use lock files, and you can't change that without breaking things in the wild. Anyway, that aside, they are a bad idea. They create a trivial denial of service opportunity for users with /tmp access but not local access, they clutter up /tmp, and the role they serve is already covered by the more modern -displayfd construct. --Ray _______________________________________________ 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
