From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-138008-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1SPwxt-0006pm-O6
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 03 May 2012 14:25:06 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 80AC0E0858;
	Thu,  3 May 2012 14:24:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDBDE08A5
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu,  3 May 2012 14:22:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bkcjk13 with SMTP id jk13so1628966bkc.40
        for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 03 May 2012 07:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=yl8zD6Heg3VjltR5be+pgl3m92Jlr/iz5HpALAwrYmo=;
        b=FrHi6kyfRaUM7/ILhXamhw5yaTqP9jgocRuPrAFJUz1W5A3uFosAe/lTNq3j+AE68z
         rf7oi+M8gcqXeieaRdyR9E/sAW6TuPhgToUJQ3y14FhwxZLL8LSGVRAOJK7+tuPlb0IM
         fF6hEF4fnWzFFqo6FfqajE/2Chd8+GPyUdCT5vhYMG3QPtAG/Esngql0e2bapfvfdDwU
         95A76vfc7+9IfWLbdNh16FJbLEPVf25pg+kcNfQJsKAEg5aHg5vf9aS5exXuGcYhGHvQ
         hjRdNW1k36yQ0auXbyYPHmmoGbrT1ggqhJGbk2/DvhVeNL5JOlzd39HzTR7pfdZiRoP6
         5EuQ==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.156.24 with SMTP id u24mr766984bkw.75.1336054959759; Thu,
 03 May 2012 07:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.153.213 with HTTP; Thu, 3 May 2012 07:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FA29151.7030505@st.com>
References: <4FA226D1.10302@st.com>
	<jnt9t1$1e4$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<4FA29151.7030505@st.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 10:22:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+czFiAFCg0Mp_THv=Mv9hVVxANDqDUnB7ay_E9yia4HCmsZhg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: X segfault with nvidia-drivers-295.40 on GT520
From: Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: ace51d5d-3281-4803-9ed2-576371d012ca
X-Archives-Hash: c5ea80413dd63d7612844266ede820e6

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Raffaele BELARDI
<raffaele.belardi@st.com> wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 08:50 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 03/05/12 09:39, Raffaele BELARDI wrote:
>>> One month ago I switched to an Nvidia-based (ASUS GT520, PCI-e) video
>>> card on an ~amd64 box. I immediately had problems with the latest Nvidi=
a
>>> driver causing a segfault when X started (text console is ok) so I
>>> switched to 295.20-r1 and everything was fine.
>>>
>>> But I forgot to mask 295.40 and during yesterday's update it got pulled
>>> in again, with the same segfault behaviour when starting X.
>>>
>>> I tried to manually downgrade nvidia-drivers but now glibc is upgraded
>>> to 2.15-r1 and nvidia-drivers-295.20-r1 depends on an older glibc
>>> (2.14.1-r3, I think). Emerge refuses to downgrade glibc so I am stuck.
>>>
>>> Since it is a mythtv box I want to stay away from nouveau. No problem
>>> myself with it but most of the mythtv development is around proprietary
>>> nvidia drivers.
>>>
>>> What other options do I have?
>>> Is everybody running nvidia-drivers-295.40 without problems?
>>
>> No problems here, but you can try 302.07 (I run those since yesterday.)
>> =C2=A0 The usual way: copy the ebuild in your local overlay and rename i=
t to
>> nvidia-drivers-302.07.ebuild, then do a digest. =C2=A0Same for
>> nvidia-settings, but edit it and remove the patches.
>
> thanks, but I'd rather =C2=A0keep that as a last option because I have no
> guarantee of success with the 302.07 driver.
>
> Another possibility came to my mind: I have a backup partition which I
> did not upgrade since I switched from the on-board ATI GPU to the Nvidia
> video card.
> I'll try to upgrade that partition masking >nvidia-drivers-295.20-r1.
>
> It'd be interesting to understand why I'm getting the segfault with the
> 295.40, but being a closed driver I suppose there is little I can diagnos=
e.

Emerge with --ggdb3, enable core dumps (I forget the particular
sysctl, sorry), and open up the core dump in gdb. At the very least,
you might get something interesting if the segfault happens in a stack
frame belonging to an open-source function a closed blob links to, or
if the segfault happens in a pure portion of the stack.

(For example, on my broken boxes, the stack hadn't gotten into
application-specific portions; it was still trying to get into the
general CRT prologue code.)

--=20
:wq