[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071026164441.GI26573@aehallh.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:44:41 -0400
From: "Zephaniah E. Hull" <warp@...allh.com>
To: Ryan Lortie <desrt@...rt.ca>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
linux-input <linux-input@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: Support for a less exclusive grab.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:37:34AM -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-24-10 at 11:35 -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> > We need a way to, at the absolute minimum, unbind the keyboard from the
> > text console. The current solution sucks for things like rfkill.
> >
> > I'm not convinced that Ryan's fix is any better, but just saying that X
> > should open the console and ignore the characters is simply not an
> > option as far as I am concerned for X.
>
> Can you think of any other way to separate things like rfkill/evdev from
> things like the text console that's less hacky than my 'priority'
> scheme?
What we really want to give is exclusitivity verses other 'end users',
as opposed the 'filters'.
I'm defining an 'end user' to be a handler that cares about all the
events from a device and plans on doing something with it.
That would be the console layer for keyboards, /dev/input/mice and
/dev/input/mouse<n> for mice, X for both of those, etc.
A 'filter' cares about a key or two, and might even want to remove it
from the stream, rfkill is a good example.
Now, how do we design for that? Not a clue right now, still thinking
about it really.
Zephaniah E. Hull.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists