From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v3] input/input06: Fix auto-repeat key test
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:45:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170831124546.GA1487@rei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170824201207.62652-1-sspatil@google.com>
Hi!
> +static struct input_event *next_event()
^
Old style definition,
checkpatch.pl should warn about
these
> +{
> + struct input_event *ev = NULL;
^
Why do we initialize the value here if it's
not used at all?
> - rd = read(fd2, iev, sizeof(iev));
> + if (!have_events())
> + read_events();
>
> - check_size(rd);
> + ev = &events[ev_iter++];
> + return ev;
Why not just return &events[ev_iter++]; ?
> +}
>
> - if (rd > 0 && check_event(&iev[i], EV_KEY, KEY_X, 1))
> - i++;
> +static int check_sync_event(void)
> +{
> + return check_event_code(next_event(), EV_SYN, SYN_REPORT);
> +}
>
> - while (check_bound(i, rd) && !check_event(&iev[i], EV_KEY, KEY_X, 0)) {
> +static int parse_autorepeat_config(struct input_event *iev)
> +{
> + if (!check_event_code(iev, EV_REP, REP_DELAY)) {
> + tst_resm(TFAIL,
> + "Didn't get EV_REP configuration with code REP_DELAY");
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (!check_event_code(next_event(), EV_REP, REP_PERIOD)) {
> + tst_resm(TFAIL,
> + "Didn't get EV_REP configuration with code REP_PERIOD");
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
> +static int parse_key(struct input_event *iev)
> +{
> + int autorep_count = 0;
> +
> + if (!check_event(iev, EV_KEY, KEY_X, 1) || !check_sync_event()) {
> + tst_resm(TFAIL, "Didn't get expected key press for KEY_X");
> + return 0;
> + }
>
> - if (iev[i].type != EV_SYN
> - && !check_event(&iev[i], EV_KEY, KEY_X, 2)) {
> - tst_resm(TINFO,
> - "Didn't receive EV_KEY KEY_X with value 2");
> + iev = next_event();
> + while (check_event(iev, EV_KEY, KEY_X, 2) && check_sync_event()) {
> + autorep_count++;
> + iev = next_event();
> + }
> +
> + /* make sure we have atleast one auto-repeated key event */
> + if (!autorep_count) {
> + tst_resm(TFAIL,
> + "Didn't get autorepeat events for the key - KEY_X");
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (!check_event(iev, EV_KEY, KEY_X, 0) || !check_sync_event()) {
> + tst_resm(TFAIL,
> + "Didn't get expected key release for KEY_X");
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + tst_resm(TINFO,
> + "Received %d repititions for KEY_X", autorep_count);
> +
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
> +static int check_events(void)
> +{
> + struct input_event *iev;
> + int ret;
> + int rep_config_done = 0;
> + int rep_keys_done = 0;
> +
> + read_events();
> +
> + while (have_events()) {
> + iev = next_event();
> + switch (iev->type) {
> + case EV_REP:
> + ret = parse_autorepeat_config(iev);
> + if (!rep_config_done)
^
This if is useless here.
> + rep_config_done = 1;
> + break;
> + case EV_KEY:
> + ret = parse_key(iev);
> + if (!rep_keys_done)
^
Here as well.
> + rep_keys_done = 1;
> + break;
> + default:
> + tst_resm(TFAIL,
> + "Unexpected event type '0x%04x' received",
> + iev->type);
> + ret = 0;
> break;
> }
> - i++;
> - nb++;
>
> - if (i == rd / sizeof(struct input_event)) {
> - i = 0;
> - rd = read(fd2, iev, sizeof(iev));
> - check_size(rd);
> - }
> + if (!ret || (rep_config_done && rep_keys_done))
> + break;
> }
>
> - return (nb > 0 && check_bound(i, rd)
> - && check_event(&iev[i], EV_KEY, KEY_X, 0));
> + return ret;
> }
Also I would disagree that the value for sync event is undefined, it has
been 0 since the beginning and if you look into the kernel input.h
header it has:
static inline void input_sync(struct input_dev *dev)
{
input_event(dev, EV_SYN, SYN_REPORT, 0);
}
Apart from that it looks OK.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-31 12:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-24 20:12 [LTP] [PATCH v3] input/input06: Fix auto-repeat key test Sandeep Patil
2017-08-31 12:45 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2017-09-05 21:43 ` Sandeep Patil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170831124546.GA1487@rei \
--to=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.