On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 06:10, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Could something based on this patch, or one of the other suggestions in
> the bug log, be applied?
I think that's a good idea. To recap, the problem is many-fold:
* The default timeouts are too low
* On hitting a timeout, the dr
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 12:10:43AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Could something based on this patch, or one of the other suggestions in
> the bug log, be applied?
>
> [Overquoting for history, since this was a while back.]
Okay. I will apply something based on it, then.
I was expecting mor
Could something based on this patch, or one of the other suggestions in
the bug log, be applied?
[Overquoting for history, since this was a while back.]
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 05:52:53PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:45:59PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On S
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:45:59PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:21:11PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 17:38, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > >
> > > Downgrading to xserver-xfree86 4.2.1-16 has eliminated the problem so
> > > my money is on the 4
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:21:11PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 17:38, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > Downgrading to xserver-xfree86 4.2.1-16 has eliminated the problem so
> > my money is on the 4.3.0 r128 driver.
>
> If you agree that your problem seems related to
> http
On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 17:38, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> Downgrading to xserver-xfree86 4.2.1-16 has eliminated the problem so
> my money is on the 4.3.0 r128 driver.
If you agree that your problem seems related to
http://bugs.xfree86.org/show_bug.cgi?id=271, can you try the workarounds
discusse
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:32:51PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 18:23, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:19:02PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > >
> > > It's probably the 3D driver or the DRM that causes it, not the X server.
> >
> > What do you mean i
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:32:51PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 18:23, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:19:02PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > >
> > > It's probably the 3D driver or the DRM that causes it, not the X server.
> >
> > What do you mean
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:55:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Some clarfications:
>
> _dri.so objects don't get loaded into the X server; they are dlopened()
> by the Mesa library.
>
> You'll also notice they're not installed to the same place as XFree86
> X server modules.
>
> They're als
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:39:36PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:32:51PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 18:23, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:19:02PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's probably the 3D dr
On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 18:23, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:19:02PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >
> > It's probably the 3D driver or the DRM that causes it, not the X server.
>
> What do you mean in this context by "the 3D driver"?
r128_dri.so .
> All I know for sure is
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:32:51PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 18:23, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:19:02PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > >
> > > It's probably the 3D driver or the DRM that causes it, not the X server.
> >
> > What do you mean i
On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 18:13, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:10:38PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >
> > The chip has probably locked up.
>
> It looks that way. Is there anything I can do to help track down what
> the new X is doing that causes it to lock up?
It's probably
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:19:02PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 18:13, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:10:38PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > >
> > > The chip has probably locked up.
> >
> > It looks that way. Is there anything I can do to help tra
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:10:38PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 16:23, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:31:16PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > I didn't get a backtrace from here; sorry. I killed the X server and
> > > restarted it. The restart
On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 16:23, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:31:16PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I didn't get a backtrace from here; sorry. I killed the X server and
> > restarted it. The restart makes this message appear in dmesg repeatedly:
>
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0xff
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:31:16PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> I didn't get a backtrace from here; sorry. I killed the X server and
> restarted it. The restart makes this message appear in dmesg repeatedly:
(gdb) bt
#0 0xe410 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#1 0x4013ab09 in ioctl () from /li
17 matches
Mail list logo
