On 12/16/2011 11:22 AM, Keith Packard wrote: > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:26:50 +0100, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:14:46AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote: >>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:14:15 -0500, Alex Villacís Lasso <a_villacis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> By using a bootable USB stick, I could check the logs, which >>>> showed many segfaults at /lib64/ld-2.14.90.so . >>> >>> Ouch! >>> >>> Please let me know if you find anything further; I'd like to get a >>> revert sent upstream in the next day or so. >> >> I think the revert is trtd. But if you revert it, please also >> revert/disable the ilk vt-d workaound or apply one of Ben's patches, >> because that one _does_ blow up, too. > > Only if VT-d is enabled though, and that patch is now old enough that > reverting it may cause additional problems. > > Ben's patches still appear to have problems -- they don't appear to > resolve the infinite recursion issue for unknown reasons. > > I'm going to revert the patch which causes the reported regression, then > wait for Eric to finish up his request queue cleanups and revisit this > problem after that. If this is referring to Dave Airlie's comment that it blows up, I think he took that back as a bad backport on his part (maybe he can confirm). Aside from that, I never saw anyone report my patch as bad... or good. Ben _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
