From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: Applications & ACPI events Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 23:35:05 +0200 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <20031009213504.GC365@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20030930165926.GH1921@fairlite.demon.co.uk> <20030930173646.GF11391@poupinou.org> <20031003193814.GE205@openzaurus.ucw.cz> <20031006124935.GQ11391@poupinou.org> <20031006130533.GA311@elf.ucw.cz> <20031008102745.GF11391@poupinou.org> <20031008191610.GB1035@elf.ucw.cz> <20031008215342.GE1920@fairlite.demon.co.uk> <20031008215850.GF1238@elf.ucw.cz> <20031009140648.GH1922@fairlite.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031009140648.GH1922-ASBjxr/nLg+TY6FTCsQk+9Bc4/FLrbF6@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: Alan Hourihane Cc: Ducrot Bruno , acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > > IMO X should do full save and restore, on every console switch. That > > > > way it is safe to killall -9 X when you are on console, and I think I > > > > like it that way. I do not think console switching is i386-only, I > > > > know that sparc64's had consoles, too. > > > > > > Doing a kill -9 on any application doesn't allow the application to > > > catch the signal. Thus X cannot restore itself, and neither can any > > > application that gets it. If you kill -9 anything then suffer the > > > consequences of it not cleaning up. > > > > I should be able to kill -9 any task and keep my system running (I'm > > not complaining about stale lock files etc). Unfortunately that is not > > true with X. It would be nice if at kill -9 would be safe at least > > when kernel has control of display. > > You said 'X should do full save and restore, on every console switch'. > The fact is that X can only do a full save/restore (and it does!) on > the VT that it owns. If you really want to do a kill -9, then the > kernel has no choice but to clean up and restore itself which is impossible > as it knows nothing about some of the intricasies of the some of the graphics > engines out there. Thats okay, I do not want to kill -9 X when it owns console. X does _not_ do full save/restore, at least not for all drivers. vesafb does no saving, and generic vga driver is also incapable of full save/restore. Not sure about others. > > > > OTOH if X knew how to bring video card up from powerdown... that would > > > > help a lot, and would need a kernel support. ("Hey, X, I just did > > > > resume and graphics card is uninitialized. It is not even in vga text > > > > mode. Do something with it.") > > > > > > Most drivers in X do know how to bring up the video chip from an > > > uninitialized state. If the kernel is doing a VT switch internally and > > > back again on resume then it should just work. > > > > Kernel is doing VT switch in -test6. But I do not really think X can > > bring up the video chip... are you really able to program video card > > memory timings and similar stuff? On what cards? > > X can bring it up. X uses the int10 library to softboot a video board. > XFree86 even has an x86 emulator so it can do this on non-X86 platforms. > > I guess I'll just have to try -test6 to see if it does VT switch when > hitting the power button to suspend.... Be sure to report results.. Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php