Re: Xorg log file filling up with error
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Frank McCormick wrote:
> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:06:17
> From: Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Xorg log file filling up with error
> Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 18:06:49 +0000 (UTC)
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
>
>
> On 9/18/18 3:58 AM, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2018, Frank McCormick wrote:
> >
> >> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 15:44:16
> >> From: Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca>
> >> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> >> Subject: Xorg log file filling up with error
> >> Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 19:59:39 +0000 (UTC)
> >> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> >>
> >> Just noticed today when my xorg logfile grew to 2 gb.
> >> This error : 39.263] (EE) modeset(0): Failed to get GBM bo for flip to new
> >> front.
> >>
> >> is repeated hundreds of time. I have filed a bug, but in the meantime
> >> is there away to avoid this, perhaps using the xorg.conf file. I don't
> >> have one at the moment but if somebody has an idea how I can create one
> >> what to put in it and where to put it I'd appreciate it
> >> very much
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> > I haven't had this happen, but think uniq writing to xorg.log.new then mv
> > xorg.log.new xorg.log might help. As a test, try wc -l xorg.log
> >> logtest.txt
> > uniq xorg.log
> > wc -l xorg.log >>logtest.txt
> > then compare the line counts in xorgtest.txt. If the second is far
> > smaller than the first, you might use grep to get a count of that error
> > message in the modified xorg.log file and see if it comes back as 1. If
> > so, then uniq worked.
> >>>
> >
>
> That would work...ut I found another way around the problem. Created
> an xorg.conf file in /etc/X11 setting the PageFlip option to false.
> Bingo!
What does page-flip do in X11? My interest is in terms of screen reader
accessibility. If it won't help accessibility when true, that may be
good to turn off as a matter of course.
> > Thanks
>
> Frank
>
>
>
--
Reply to: