From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [Question : drivers/input ] Fixing Event Filter Mechanism in input subsystem Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:46:58 -0800 Message-ID: <20141226234658.GC1071@dtor-ws> References: <20141222172622.GA18556@dtor-ws> <20141224182511.GA21956@dtor-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174]:44835 "EHLO mail-ie0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750808AbaLZXrD (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Dec 2014 18:47:03 -0500 Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id at20so10130651iec.19 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:47:02 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Anshul Garg Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, "anshul.g@samsung.com" Hi Anshul, On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:11:06AM +0530, Anshul Garg wrote: > Dear Mr Dmitry , > > Thanks a lot for the clarification. > > I was in assumption that one handler can support both ->filter() and > ->event[s]() > Callback.So that's why i have prepared the patch to first do the > filter then pass > the events. > > Can you please tell me why current implementation doesn't expect handler can > have both callbacks? Because it was something I saw no need for: filter already has all the events so it can process them. If you really want to process events again once all filters have run, you can register additional handler. > > I think input core should be generic to allow any type of handlers which can > support both filter and events callbacks. > > Please help to answer above query as my patch is based on this pre-assumption > that one handler can support both callbacks . > > If we really need to have support of such handlers in input core then > only my patch > is good. I think I would need a user for this feature before changing the code to allow it. Thanks. -- Dmitry