Bug#522605: xserver-xorg-video-mga: Fatal server error: xf86MapDomainMem(): mmap() failure
On 04/05/2009 07:39 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
reassign 522605 xserver-xorg-core
forcemerge 488669 522605
kthxbye
On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 17:46 +1000, Shaddy Baddah wrote:
My understanding from
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=500358 is that X on
sparc was basket-cased except for the builtin cards of various 64 bit
sparc systems. However, I really hope that a case-by-case approach is
taken to work through all these types of problems.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'case by case approach'. What exact
kernel are you running (contents of /proc/version)?
First up, contents of /proc/version:
Linux version 2.6.26-1-sparc64 (Debian 2.6.26-13lenny2)
(dannf@debian.org) (gcc version 4.1.3 20080704 (prerelease) (Debian
4.1.2-25)) #1 Fri Mar 13 17:42:29 UTC 2009
In terms of case by case approach, I followed the bug around the time
that it was raised/addressed. Here is a summary of my understanding:
* from message #119, Bastian Blank of the kernel team downgraded the
severity of a let's call it "generic X.org on sparc problem", stating:
'There is only a small fraction of machines affected, so this is not RC.'
* my reading is that he was persuaded to give the bug a greater
severity when it was intimated that MACH64 being broken on lenny was
going to cause a problem for (paraphrasing) a large fraction of Sun
Ultra 5/10 owners, because that is the onboard video card.
* but for this exception, it read that X.org brokenness on sparc
seemed to be not a critical issue to any stable Debian release.
* my scenario does not fall within the exception. I am trying to (as
message #126 words it) assemble a unique set of components will not work
together well.
* except that I believe that as xserver-xorg-video-mga is provided for
sparc, I should be able to expect that adding a MGA card is a reasonable
thing to do. It doesn't have to work first go, I'm not having a whinge
about that. I am just pre-empting the bug being considered not important
because of what I read as a blanket policy. That's what I mean by case
by case consideration.
Actually, I am sorry to have started off on the wrong foot, and would
like to apologise. I am happy not to pre-empt anything and just let the
collective you handle it appropriately.
Thanks in advance,
Shaddy
Reply to: