On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 23:53 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:46:45PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:46:43PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 21:33:21 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > > > So it looks like when it's missing, X gets it loaded, but not fast > > > > enough to apply to the same session...? > > > > > > Correct. Closing as not a bug. > > > > Uhh, what? a) we know that users will be screwed and yet we'll declare the > > screwage "not a bug"?!
How will they be 'screwed'? It seems like most people are making similar upgrades without issues. > > b) you didn't notice my earlier message where I found it's an open > > bug upstream (with several submitters)? > > I see now that Michel also marked that one "resolved wontfix". > > Well, that's a great way to treat four bug submitters - nobody cares for > your problem, and that's not all - your reports are so worthless to us > that we also want to make an extra effort to publicly act like complete > assholes towards you. Watch your tone. You're barking up the wrong tree. I did point out this problem a long time ago, but according to Dave Airlie it's not really possible to make the X driver reliably detect that KMS will be enabled in this scenario. In order to alleviate the problem, I made the X driver bail. Previously, it would start up in UMS mode, resulting in the kernel and X drivers both accessing the hardware behind each other's backs. I hope you can see the potential for fun there. Feel free to prove Dave wrong, but I just don't think it's worth it for a corner case caused by broken configuration. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1337067134.7335.261.camel@thor.local
