The Linux Kernel Has Been Forcing Different Behavior For Processes Starting With "X"

[mercster]

Because god forbids I having a legit on topic doubt, right?

"Shoulda" stopped at user creation form junior user

It wasn't a doubt: you don't know how C works (let alone how kernel data structures work) and, for some reason, thought you'd question a kernel maintainer. And have no doubt, I've been using Linux since before you were born. I just don't run my mouth on forums when I don't know what I'm talking about. Stay in school!

[ryao]

Xorg is fine they say. No need for Wayland they say...

It is fine. Modern systems use the mode setting driver, so issues in older DDX drivers that nobody use do not matter very much.

I suspect people blindly upvoting your ignorant comment have no clue about any of this.

[ryao]

I'm not a C dev, but doesn't

 && req->value == 1

mean that only a process named "X" would enter in this condition?

I'm not saying it's not a questionable solution, but if it's true then maybe it didn't affect as many processes as they thought.

No. That has nothing to do with the process name. Any process whose name starts with X will have this hack applied.

[ryao]

Classic example of Xorg quality, but morons praising microkernel brain dead design have no clue as usual. Tell me why there's no single use case for your broken by design piece of shit microkernel? Just don't come with 'layers between OS and hardware' examples. I want examples of real world usage and performance of this broken by design POS. Oh, and why even OpenBSD doesn't give a shit about your crap?

Cell phone baseband processors and the Intel ME use micro kernel designs. They are used in embedded systems where correctness is more important than performance.

[ryao]

It's X's fault because we need kernel workarounds for X's shortcomings. Because X is unmaintained. And Wayland isn't. That's how.

The Xorg server is largely maintained. The parts that are not used on modern systems like the DDX drivers are not given much attention, but that is a far cry from the whole being unmaintained (and historically, the Intel DDX driver is both very good and well maintained). The reason why a number of DDX drivers have atrophied is because they have been replaced by the mode setting driver. A number of the DDX drivers were never very good in the first place too, but before the mode setting driver, they were the best we had.

[ryao]

There was about 2 and a bit years where the X.org X11 server did not have maintainer that is 2018 to 2021 time area. There is a backlog of that 2 and a bit years to catch up on and lack of personal as to catch up on this. Minimally maintained is not exactly right. X.org X11 server is still technically less than minimally maintained due to the backlog that has not been 100 percent caught up on. You need more than minimal personal to catch up. This is also why the current X11 server maintainer is still working out if more parts can be cut off.

Yes unmaintained is not the current status but neither is minimally maintained. The current status of X11 Server is really attempting to get back to minimally maintained status and this has included trimming down the code base attempting get to that.

Something else to remember the prior maintainer to the current one stopped maintaining in 2018 because the process of maintaining X11 server by himself burnt him out. This means we cannot be sure how stable X.org X11 server future is.

For something “unmaintained”, it has a large number of release announcements:

https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-announce/

Individual modules are being updated as needed.

The core server is being updated too:

https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-announce/2022-July/003193.html

[furtadopires]

It wasn't a doubt:

Since you lack skill in text interpretation, from my post

mean that only a process named "X" would enter in this condition?

Not my problem if you don't know what a question mark is, oh great C master

thought you'd question a kernel maintainer.

Which I'm 100% sure you're not

And have no doubt, I've been using Linux since before you were born.

Well you were surely doing something that isn't learn how to properly interpret a text, apparently

[furtadopires]

No. That has nothing to do with the process name. Any process whose name starts with X will have this hack applied.

Yes someone explained to me earlier, thanks

[mercster]

I'm not a C dev, but doesn't

 && req->value == 1

mean that only a process named "X" would enter in this condition?

I'm not saying it's not a questionable solution, but if it's true then maybe it didn't affect as many processes as they thought.

Just so everyone watching this kid have a tantrum sees the original post, and refuses to take his L quietly and go home.

[mercster]

Not my problem if you don't know what a question mark is, oh great C master

It was a harmless joke... if you can't take ribbing after saying something stupid, you aren't cut out for tech.

Which I'm 100% sure you're not

You're right, I'm not... but I know I'm not smart enough to question something said on LKML or any other kernel dev forum. You weren't, which is what I pointed out.

Well you were surely doing something that isn't learn how to properly interpret a text, apparently

I interpreted it correctly, the same as everyone else... you looked at a post from a kernel maintainer, that was fixing a bug, and questioned his decision... even after admitting you don't know C! That was a foolish thing to do. :-) Next time, instead of rolling eyes at someone else, roll your eyes at yourself and don't throw a tantrum when someone makes a joke.