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

Bug#516860: marked as done (Xorg with '-sharevts' use almost 100% of the CPU)

Your message dated Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:18:34 +0100
with message-id <20110117141834.GA20886@vdg.blogsite.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#516860: Xorg with '-sharevts' use almost 100% of the CPU
has caused the Debian Bug report #516860,
regarding Xorg with '-sharevts' use almost 100% of the CPU
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
516860: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=516860
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: xserver-xorg-core
Version: 2:1.4.2-11

Hi,

If Xorg runs with '-sharevts', it'll use about 100% of the CPU.
I found a launchpad entry about this via Google:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg/+bug/33611
With the patch applied, the problem is gone.

Is it possible to add this patch to our patch list? :)

Regards,
Wen-chien Jesse Sung

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 2:1.7.2-2

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:42:38AM +0800, Jesse Sung wrote:
> Package: xserver-xorg-core
> Version: 2:1.4.2-11
> 
> Hi,
> 
> If Xorg runs with '-sharevts', it'll use about 100% of the CPU.
> I found a launchpad entry about this via Google:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg/+bug/33611
> With the patch applied, the problem is gone.
> 
> Is it possible to add this patch to our patch list? :)
> 
> Regards,
> Wen-chien Jesse Sung
> 
This patch was added in the ubuntu branch at commit [1] and later 
removed at commit [2] (seen on debian git, I didn't understand how LP
works to give the actuall link).
Anyway 2 was preparing 2:1.7.2-2ubuntu1 saying it was fixed upstream, so
I guess debian got it from upstream directly at 2:1.7.2-2 (or before)
anyway as of today it should be fixed.

 1: b89b5024723ad41a26d800053d78491a8f5f9887
 2: 3e56e6e501e1fc80c43e5976a2d48749896372d9

Best Regards,

-- 
Julien Viard de Galbert                        <julien@vdg.blogsite.org>
http://silicone.homelinux.org/           <julien@silicone.homelinux.org>

--- End Message ---
Reply to: