You are not logged in.
Not sure what is different with xorg 7.0 but ati-drivers cause a kernel panic after starting up X. Or is it because ATI hasn't released 7.0 drivers?
Offline
You're getting a full-blown kernel panic?
What kernel? Which ati-drivers packages do you have installed? You need:
ati-drivers-8.22.5-3
and one of:
ati-drivers-archck-8.22.5-2
or
ati-drivers-arch-8.22.5-2
depending on your kernel.
Offline
Well I'm almost using archck. I don't use the prebuild version as it has preemption (which defeats the purpose of ck). But otherwise it is the same.
Offline
Okay, well, if the kernel uname -r isn't 2.6.15-archck then you're probably going to have to roll your own ati-drivers-$kernel package, to go along with the ati-drivers package that contains all the userland tools & xorg module.
Offline
I did that already. But I'll try the prepacked kernel/driver and see if it makes a difference.
Offline
Interesting. Using the prepackaged kernel/drivers worked. I did notice that the prepackaged kernel has a few additional patches. I was just using the archck patch set. I'll do some tests.
It really isn't a big deal but I don't like preemption as I've had problems with it.
Offline
I disabled pre-emption in an older archck release and had pages and pages of whines and complaints. I was left with little choice but to enable it again.
Con dislikes pre-emption, but it isnt that bad. It does help under some loads. It certainly doesnt 'defeat the purpose' of CK as you describe it does.
If you're having major problems with pre-emption, try reporting them so they can be fixed.
iphitus
Offline
I had the same problem when I tried to start x after the change to Xorg7 without adjusting the paths in xorg.conf.
Everything works fine now. (Xorg7, archck-kernel, ati-drivers)
Cheers Sigi
Haven't been here in a while. Still rocking Arch.
Offline
I disabled pre-emption in an older archck release and had pages and pages of whines and complaints. I was left with little choice but to enable it again.
Understandable.
Con dislikes pre-emption, but it isnt that bad. It does help under some loads. It certainly doesnt 'defeat the purpose' of CK as you describe it does.
I've read him saying that he doesn't see the point and that he wrote his patches with the intent of producing the same results of preemption without actually using preemption. But this has been a long debated point that will probably never die. To each his/her own.
If you're having major problems with pre-emption, try reporting them so they can be fixed.
Well part of it is my wireless rt2500. The current driver refuses to work with preemption/SMP. But the beta 2.0 series is being developed.
I've also noticed significant slowdowns on my laptop when using preemption. But on other systems I've had in the past preemption doesn't make a noticable difference. So one has to experiment to see if it is worth it for a particular system.
Thanks for the help.
Offline
When the panic was happening I was using a manual build of archck but with only archck patches. I rolled a new kernel but used the other patches in ABS. Sure enough it is working now. Not really sure what the patches do that make it work.
Offline