[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinipkcuT=bBo39GWeQt5-tHGMf_pnHGCot6N95E@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:07:40 -0700
From: Jeffrey Brown <jeffbrown@...roid.com>
To: Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>
Cc: linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] input: evdev: only wake poll on EV_SYN
>> - if (event->type == EV_SYN)
>> + if (event->type == EV_SYN && event->code != SYN_MT_REPORT)
>
> It is not clear what should happen at the other SYN events. Maybe
> event->code == SYN_REPORT instead?
>
>> kill_fasync(&client->fasync, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
>> }
The reasoning here is that we want to wake up (for poll) or signal
(for fasync) the waiters when a complete packet is available.
SYN_CONFIG, SYN_REPORT and the proposed SYN_DROPPED are all
indications of a complete packet being ready or at least an indication
that the reader should do something. The odd one out is
SYN_MT_REPORT.
>> - wake_up_interruptible(&evdev->wait);
>> + if (type == EV_SYN && code != SYN_MT_REPORT)
>> + wake_up_interruptible(&evdev->wait);
>
> Ah, this is a good one. Since the code depends on the same logic being
> applied in evdev_pass_event as well, a boolean argument to that
> function would be good.
I agree. We could pass a flag to evdev_pass_event to indicate whether
to signal fasync processes that are waiting for data.
Jeff.
--
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