Hi all,
I've already reported this in bugzilla (bug# 3386). If I should have
reported this problem in this forum first, I apologise. I am happy to
debug this myself, if someone could please give me some pointers on how
to debug an active kernel module, and what I should look for first.
I am
Nik schrieb:
> Hi all,
>
> I've already reported this in bugzilla (bug# 3386). If I should have
> reported this problem in this forum first, I apologise. I am happy to
> debug this myself, if someone could please give me some pointers on how
> to debug an active kernel module, and what I should lo
Philipp!
Vielen Dank.
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> Nik schrieb:
>
> It's unlikely that you'll have to debug the kernel module.
> The bug probably is is the DRI.
Ok, thanks. Any tips on what I should be looking for in the DRI?
If the problem is in the DRI, then does that it mean it should affe
Nik schrieb:
> Philipp!
>
> Vielen Dank.
>
> Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
>> Nik schrieb:
>>
>> It's unlikely that you'll have to debug the kernel module.
>> The bug probably is is the DRI.
>
> Ok, thanks. Any tips on what I should be looking for in the DRI?
>
> If the problem is in the DRI, the
Phillip!
Nochmal vielen Dank. Entschuldigen sie mir auch bitte dass ich so wenig
weiss dass ich immer noch neue Fragen stellen muessen.
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
Nik schrieb:
If I remeber correctly, the problem does not affect Mesa software
rendering. Thus it should be in the r200 specif
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
Nik schrieb:
Oh ok. So in terms of names, the structure is:
The card-speciifc module in the kernel <== radeon
the card specific driver part in the DRI. <== r200
correct?
Ok, so the r200 driver is actually not a kernel module, but is a driver
used by the DRI
Nik schrieb:
> Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
>
>> Nik schrieb:
>
>
> Oh ok. So in terms of names, the structure is:
>
>> The card-speciifc module in the kernel <== radeon
>> the card specific driver part in the DRI. <== r200
>
>
> correct?
Yes.
---
Nik schrieb:
>
>
> ...which brings me to the next point: Presumably, I should be
> testing/debugging this in a recent version of the DRI source? But which
> one? Should I be checking out from CVS? Or is it acceptable for me to
> work with the source of my distro (2.6.11-1.14_FC3)?
>
> And could
On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 20:07 +1000, Nik wrote:
>
> The folks at JOGL indicated the problem could be due to JOGL making
> extensive of threads. Does that sound like a good plasce to start the
> investigation, or would you suggest I just start tracing back from the
> exception?
That's usually a g
