Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Features GNOME Developers Want In The Linux Kernel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    plymouth works but the problem is the start of X and VT fighting each other to death, with Wayland/KMS this won't happen and will behave like Os X or windows(not resolution change flipping mess at start)
    Just curious, where do you still have this? For me it was all solved with KMS several years ago.

    Comment


    • #12
      He's probably using a blob driver so no KMS.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by curaga View Post
        Just curious, where do you still have this? For me it was all solved with KMS several years ago.
        I agree with jrch2k8, I also have X and VT fights when using plymouth, even though I use open source drivers (and thus KMS).
        It's better than without, but it's still far from a neat solution.

        (I tested on Fedora last time; maybe on Arch too after, but I'm not sure since my first experience wasn't a real success)
        Last edited by Creak; 10-22-2014, 08:50 AM.

        Comment


        • #14
          The thing that really bothered me here is the request to percolate time stamps up the directory tree. This seems like an exceedingly bad idea to me. If one leaf in a tree updates and the time stamp works it's way up the tree it leaves the other leafs at the original level in a strange state of being older than the su directory they reside in.

          I hope I'm making sense here. Trying one more time - does it not create errors in logic to have sib directories that are time stamped older than the parent directory. It just blows my mind that somebody would ask for this.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
            The thing that really bothered me here is the request to percolate time stamps up the directory tree. This seems like an exceedingly bad idea to me. If one leaf in a tree updates and the time stamp works it's way up the tree it leaves the other leafs at the original level in a strange state of being older than the su directory they reside in.

            I hope I'm making sense here. Trying one more time - does it not create errors in logic to have sib directories that are time stamped older than the parent directory. It just blows my mind that somebody would ask for this.
            It depends... If the timestamp is not in the existing "last modified" node property, but in a new "last subdir modified" one, this could work... and also take more memory during format, but not that much. And it should improve considerably the speed of trackers and sync softwares.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
              it leaves the other leafs at the original level in a strange state of being older than the su directory they reside in.

              I hope I'm making sense here. Trying one more time - does it not create errors in logic to have sib directories that are time stamped older than the parent directory.
              Do the following operations: create directory A. Notice its time stamp.
              Now inside it create directory B. Notice that the timestamp of A changed and is now the same as the one of B.
              Also inside directory a create directory C. Notice that now A and C have the same timestamp that is more recent than that of B.

              So B is now older than the directory that it resides in.

              (note that you have to use ls --full-time or some other tool that also shows seconds to notice differences in timestamps less then a minute)

              Comment

              Working...
              X