Hi David, I'm currently using this patch with a dual-seat system consisting of a primary Intel onboard video chip and a secondary Silicon Motion SM501 graphics card with no DRM/KMS drivers available (much like a NVIDIA card with proprietary drivers). At the moment, I've observed no problems at all, but more tests will be really welcome.
CANTATE DOMINO CANTICUM NOVUM QUIA MIRABILIA FECIT Laércio 2013/11/11 David Herrmann <dh.herrm...@gmail.com> > Hi > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Laércio de Sousa <lbsous...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > This is my first atempt to block VT access to non-seat0 X servers. > > > > If -seat option is passed with a value different from seat0, > > X server won't call xf86OpenConsole(). > > > > This is needed to avoid any race condition between seat0 and > > non-seat0 X servers. If a non-seat0 X server opens a given VT > > before a seat0 one which expects to open the same VT, one can > > get an inactive systemd-logind graphical session for seat0. > > > > This patch was first tested in a multiseat setup with multiple > > video cards and works quite well. > > > > I suppose it can also make things like DontVTSwitch and -sharevts > > meaningless for non-seat0 seats, so it may fix bug #69477, too. > > > > Fixes: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71258 > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69477 (maybe) > > > > See also: > http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2013-October/038391.html > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018196 > > --- > > hw/xfree86/common/xf86Init.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Init.c b/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Init.c > > index 91ec4c8..a678f4d 100644 > > --- a/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Init.c > > +++ b/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Init.c > > @@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ InitOutput(ScreenInfo * pScreenInfo, int argc, char > **argv) > > want_hw_access = TRUE; > > > > if (!(flags & HW_SKIP_CONSOLE)) > > - xorgHWOpenConsole = TRUE; > > + xorgHWOpenConsole = !ServerIsNotSeat0(); > > Did you test that? I don' know whether there are any implications if > we don't open the VT. The idea sounds good, though. I'd like to see > that applied upstream. However, maybe someone can comment why > "sharedvt" was introduced in the first place? > > Thanks > David > > > } > > > > if (xorgHWOpenConsole) > > -- > > 1.8.1.4 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ 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