On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:13:09PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > On 09/15/11 20:51, Jamey Sharp wrote: > >On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 06:42:59PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >>On 09/15/11 13:07, Jamey Sharp wrote: > >>>It looks to me like you should also delete VTSYSRQ from > >>>hw/xfree86/parser/xf86tokens.h. > >> > >>Please ensure that any changes result in the X server simply ignoring > >>the VTSysReq option in existing xorg.conf and not erroring out& refusing > >>to start on a file that happens to have a no-longer-useful option in. > > > >If I understand the parser correctly (and I probably don't), it's > >already too late for that: while there's a VTSYSRQ entry in the enum in > >xf86tokens.h, nothing generates that token type. Instead, there's a > >VTSysReq ServerFlag. So deleting the token from the enum is not a > >regression, I think. > > > >I can't figure out at a quick glance whether unknown ServerFlags are > >treated as an error, though. Does the patch need to somehow make this > >flag be explicitly ignored if present? > > Honestly, I don't remember - probably easiest to just test starting the > server (when built with this series) using an xorg.conf with the entry added.
I just tested 1.11 with ServerFlags 'Option "NoSuchOption" "blag"' and didn't get any messages about it in the log. The server started up fine. > I just remember prior issues here (see commits e0a451eb7cc & d2cf562bbad > from prior obsoletion - though those seem to be keywords, not options) I saw commits along those lines, but I guess they aren't relevant here. Alexandr, my comment stands: if you delete VTSYSRQ from xf86tokens.h you can add my Reviewed-by tag to this patch. Jamey
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel