From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751165AbWFBC6d (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:58:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751166AbWFBC6d (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:58:33 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.194]:33490 "EHLO nz-out-0102.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751165AbWFBC6d (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:58:33 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=G8NYQPHfzXNE90pv2vsukxDokHXDxt9lV+gKR8hCMTKJQDAbGwOlRs/qkb6vse1tF/zh2RMQJQ15eXolQrS0VTXGJSn7OAUe+W64gJ+BLwV3b73KcR04j84EDsXN1bLBZmhxynSZYjDpMukELN6/8FGCXC/hmfO0Kgd0oxg18t4= Message-ID: <9e4733910606011958k5906117cl9ca18ddbaf9c3cc5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:58:22 -0400 From: "Jon Smirl" To: "D. Hazelton" Subject: Re: OpenGL-based framebuffer concepts Cc: "Dave Airlie" , "Ondrej Zajicek" , "Pavel Machek" , "Alan Cox" , "Kyle Moffett" , "Manu Abraham" , "linux cbon" , "Helge Hafting" , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, adaplas@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <200606012234.31566.dhazelton@enter.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060519224056.37429.qmail@web26611.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <21d7e9970606011815y226ebb86ob42ec0421072cf07@mail.gmail.com> <9e4733910606011918vc53bbag4ac5e353a3e5299a@mail.gmail.com> <200606012234.31566.dhazelton@enter.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 6/1/06, D. Hazelton wrote: > VT switch to a VT where X is running. X will still require a VT and assume it > has good access to the graphics system. While currently it has no problems, > when drmcon becomes a reality there will have to be a state switch between > the consoles settings and the setting for the VT running X. > > > 14) backwards compatible, an old X server should still run on a new > > > kernel. I will allow for new options to be enabled at run-time so that > > > this isn't possible, but just booting a kernel and starting X should > > > work. > > > > I'm not sure we want to continue supporting every X server released in > > the last 25 years. But we should definitely support any X server > > released in a 2.6 based kernel distribution. What are reasonable > > limits? > > This is not a supportable position, Jon. I haven't seen it myself, but I'm > willing to bet there are still a few systems out there running X5 but have a > recent kernel. Since X version prior to 6 are no longer in wide use, however, > this is something that could be done with little damage to anyone. > > But it still breaks the spirit of Linus' directive to "break nothing" I don't know if break nothing applies to operating systems masquerading as applications. "Break nothing" works both ways. Old X servers are doing things like messing with the PCI bus that breaks new kernels. Use some common sense here, who would update to a 2006 kernel and keep running an X server from 1989? Pick a reasonable limit and say the rest are unsupported. Why make a pile of work for yourself that no sane person is ever going to make use of. Remember, an X server from 1989 only contains drivers for hardware from 1989 and earlier. Can 2.6 Linux boot on a 1989 PC with an 8514 graphics card? Does it support running in 640K with an AboveBoard? Does anyone even remember what an AboveBoard did? -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com