Re: kill -9 <pid of X>

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:55:35 +0100 (BST)


> Why is your X server in a tight loop with signals blocked?
>
> For example, it _never_ makes any sense to block SIGSEGV. For all I know,
> XFree86 may do it, but the whole point is that it is _wrong_ to try to fix
> those kinds of bugs in the kernel, when what you guys should _really_ be
> doing is to talk to the XFree86 guys and tell them they have a problem.

X has been known to do it - when its catching signals to clean up nicely
on a real X problem (eg out of memory)

> > Your daemon hanging around for a kill case doesnt work because there is
> > a fundamental race between telling the card and the daemon about a state
> > change in the video programming.
>
> Umm?? There is no race, because the _only_ thing that changes the video
> mode is the deamon. NOTHING else. So when the deamon decides to change
> modes, it can do so - and doesn't ask anything for permission.

Ok right. Now I see your model with that bit. The X server "traditional
sense" sends a message to the "not X server" to do the mode shift. And
the notXserver piece is the is the small module thats not the user
and has to be correct.

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html