Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] API prototype doc

[Sven <lu...@dp...>]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 10:55:55AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Sottek, Matthew J wrote:
> > >>The only reason to not allow mmap is that it is hard to force apps
> > >>to stop writing when they shouldn't.
> > 
> > >Why to stop them? If we do not provide full virtualization for them,
> > >we should not put any additional policy on their behavior.
> >  
> > I'm ok with leaving out policy, but the problem is that we have no
> > way to notify the client in a timely manner either. They would
> > have to poll the surface to look at the status.
> > 
> > So what should be done on a vt switch?
> > I think it may be ok to zap() someone's mmap during a vt switch but
> > otherwise make them work out their own policy. vt switches are
> > slow anyway.
> 
> That's why for 2.5.x we wanted to disable VT switching for a VT that has its
> /dev/fb* opened by some application.

Does that mean we cannot anymore switch away from X to console ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther
> 
> > I am unsure of how XFree handles this. Does the X server trap the
> > vt switch sequence, call leave_vt() then switch the vt?
> 
> The X server indeed installs a VT switch handler, and releases access to the
> hardware and does the VT switch.
> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
> 						Geert
> 
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@li...
> 
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> 							    -- Linus Torvalds
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-fbdev-devel mailing list
> Lin...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-fbdev-devel