Juha Jäykkä <email@example.com> (31/03/2010): > > X freezes are usually just important, adjusting. > > I think this makes X completely unusable, but whatever, I am not the > boss. =) vesa may help in the meanwhile? > The testing/squeeze version certainly has the same problems: I > downgraded from that version earlier back to 2.9.0 because of that, > but mistakenly upgraded later and now I do not have 2.9.0 anywhere > any more (besides I think 2.9.0 needs an older X core as well etc). Sounds like a kernel issue then? I hope you'll be able to get some traces at some point. :) > I could give a try to 2:2.10.903-1 from experimental, though... Yes please; it'd be trivial to identify the fix, should it run fine. > > Could you also give the 2.6.32-4-$arch kernel from sid a try? It > > might have some DRM-related fixes (backported from 2.6.33 and > > maybe later), which may help. > > Unless you tell me that the iwlagn-memory-reservation-bug is also > backported into .32-4 I do not see it mentioned in 2.6.32-9 or 2.6.32-10 changelog entries for linux-2.6, so probably not in 2.6.32-4-$arch kernels. > I will not. That was as annoying as this. (See > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14141 for details.) On a > second thought... that caused no data loss, this does... I will > upgrade to the latest .33 first (along with that 2.10.903). X crashing is no data loss. Data loss means you lost data you wrote. Crashing X means you didn't save soon enough. (See FS-related bugs, those are usually data loss. Or broken DB writes.) I know it's annoying, but still, it doesn't qualify as such. ;) Mraw, KiBi.
Description: Digital signature