[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080815022453.GA9438@anvil.corenet.prv>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:24:53 -0400
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Resolve 2 year old issue with different demands
on EVIOCGRAB
Hi Neil,
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:02:09PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
>
> I'll let the comments in the patch below to most of the talking.
> This came up because I wanted to use EVIOCGRAB in some code on an
> Openmoko Freerunner, and found that EVIOCGRAG does different things on
> that kernel to elsewhere. I looked into why, and found that there was
> a good reason but that the issues hadn't been completely resolved. I
> hope to help resolve the issues so that EVIOCGRAB can behave the same
> everywhere, and still meet everybody's needs.
>
> I would have Cc:ed to Magnus Vigerlof who wrote the original patch on
> which this is based, but his Email address doesn't appear in lkml.org.
>
I don't think this is a viable solution - there are other "good"
handlers beisdes evdev, such as rfkill-input, which will still get
disabled by the "lightweight" grabs.
Overall I think it is application's responsibility to not use
multiplexing devices if they use evdev, bit I can consider adding a new
interface (maybe another ioctl) that would disable event delivery though
certain interfaces for a device.
--
Dmitry
--
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