From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH] input: move check for same handler in input_pass_event Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:43:13 -0800 Message-ID: <20110107194313.GC28875@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <1294352688-29564-1-git-send-email-kristen@linux.intel.com> <20110107060456.GA29038@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20110107102434.7776091d@kcaccard-MOBL3> <20110107192938.GB28875@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4D276A51.5030102@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:42706 "EHLO mail-gx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752862Ab1AGTnT (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:43:19 -0500 Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so4287592gxk.19 for ; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 11:43:18 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D276A51.5030102@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Kristen Carlson Accardi , linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 11:32:33AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On 1/7/2011 11:29 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 10:24:34AM -0800, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > >>On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 22:04:56 -0800 > >>Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >> > >>>On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 02:24:48PM -0800, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > >>>>If the handler that injected an event is the same, > >>>>just skip the filter, but allow the handler->event() > >>>>routine to be called. This allows evdev to be able to > >>>>be used to loopback events. > >>>Why is it needed? Could you please give some examples? > >>> > >>>Thanks. > >>> > >>We have a customer who has a touchscreen device which sends > >>a bitmap into a gesture engine, which then interprets that > >>result and feeds it back into the kernel through a virtual > >>input driver that X is listening to. > >That really should be done though uinput. > > quite possible. > > but the application already exists, and works just fine in 2.6.35... > causing this to be classified as a kernel ABI regression ;-( > Hmm... I'd probably call it "relying on implementation details not spelled out anywhere". Anyway, let me ponder this one a bit... -- Dmitry