[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Xorg 7 on sparc64



Hi,

7 days, 28 minutes, 11 seconds ago, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Hm, this file loads fine for me:
> > 
> > (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libxaa.so
> > (II) Module xaa: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
> >         compiled for 7.0.0, module version = 1.2.0
> >         ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 0.8
> > 
> > sha1sum of this file is:
> > 
> > 7bfc397c6d7f0a174f46aede663c5338aacf6472  /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libxaa.so
> 
> Same file here, but it still doesn't load -- but I no longer get this
> message.  ;-)

I should note that the above remark applied to 2.6.15, probably _before_
running X.  With 2.6.16-1 (from sid), I can observe the following funny
thing:

  # file /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libxaa.so 
  /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libxaa.so: Sun disk label 'ST39111A cyl 17660 alt 2 hd 16 sec 63' 14285 phys cys, 51 alts/cyl, 0 blocks, boot block present

With 2.6.15, it's now `libramdac.so' that gets broken:

  # file /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libramdac.so 
  /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libramdac.so: sparc executable

This randomness may explain why we do not experience the same problems.

Anyway, I ran `apt-get install --reinstall xserver-xorg-core' to see
what would happen.  `debsums' then reported that _this_ package was no
longer corrupt.  Re-running X right after that made the system hang
after the following (famous) message:

  error opening security policy file /etc/X11/xserver/SecurityPolicy

I tried various configurations with `hdparm' on the hard disk in
question and that doesn't seem to make any significant difference.
Although I haven't been able to reproducibly demonstrate it, apparent
file corruption seems to occur after running X (i.e., when X fails
without crashing the whole system).

Conclusion: the kernel might be the guilty party, but X is still
suspicious as well.  ;-)

Have people been running X-free (no pun here) workloads, like builds,
with recent kernels on sparc64?  Do they trigger any such problem?

Thanks,
Ludovic.



Reply to: