|
 |
01f5fa1 |
--- xorg-server-1.1.1/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/lnx_init.c.vt-activate 2006-07-05 14:31:41.000000000 -0400
|
|
|
72b72a2 |
+++ xorg-server-1.1.1/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/lnx_init.c 2006-12-14 22:00:25.000000000 -0500
|
|
|
01f5fa1 |
@@ -248,14 +248,20 @@
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
#endif
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
/*
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
* now get the VT
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
+ *
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
+ * There's a race here, in that if someone else does a VT_ACTIVATE
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
+ * between our ACTIVATE/WAITACTIVE, we might never get the VT.
|
|
|
01f5fa1 |
+ * So we have to fail in that case. There's really no fixing this,
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
+ * it's a racy protocol.
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
*/
|
|
|
01f5fa1 |
if (ioctl(xf86Info.consoleFd, VT_ACTIVATE, xf86Info.vtno) < 0)
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
- xf86Msg(X_WARNING, "xf86OpenConsole: VT_ACTIVATE failed: %s\n",
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
- strerror(errno));
|
|
|
01f5fa1 |
+ FatalError("xf86OpenConsole: VT_ACTIVATE failed: %s\n",
|
|
|
01f5fa1 |
+ strerror(errno));
|
|
|
01f5fa1 |
+
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
|
|
|
01f5fa1 |
if (ioctl(xf86Info.consoleFd, VT_WAITACTIVE, xf86Info.vtno) < 0)
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
- xf86Msg(X_WARNING, "xf86OpenConsole: VT_WAITACTIVE failed: %s\n",
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
- strerror(errno));
|
|
|
01f5fa1 |
+ FatalError("xf86OpenConsole: VT_WAITACTIVE failed: %s\n",
|
|
|
01f5fa1 |
+ strerror(errno));
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
if (ioctl(xf86Info.consoleFd, VT_GETMODE, &VT) < 0)
|
|
|
eb5ef29 |
FatalError("xf86OpenConsole: VT_GETMODE failed %s\n",
|
|
|
72b72a2 |
@@ -352,6 +358,9 @@
|
|
|
72b72a2 |
if (ioctl(xf86Info.consoleFd, VT_ACTIVATE, activeVT) < 0)
|
|
|
72b72a2 |
xf86Msg(X_WARNING, "xf86CloseConsole: VT_ACTIVATE failed: %s\n",
|
|
|
72b72a2 |
strerror(errno));
|
|
|
72b72a2 |
+ if (ioctl(xf86Info.consoleFd, VT_WAITACTIVE, activeVT) < 0)
|
|
|
72b72a2 |
+ xf86Msg(X_WARNING, "xf86CloseConsole: VT_WAITACTIVE failed: %s\n",
|
|
|
72b72a2 |
+ strerror(errno));
|
|
|
72b72a2 |
activeVT = -1;
|
|
|
72b72a2 |
}
|
|
|
72b72a2 |
|