From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1K3t0L-00040k-Cq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:26:17 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1K3t0J-0003z8-La
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:26:16 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51753 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K3t0J-0003yu-CU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:26:15 -0400
Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.230]:60195)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>) id 1K3t0J-0003wj-6o
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:26:15 -0400
Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c49so27242wra.19
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:25:56 +0200
From: Bernhard Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Enhance sendkey with key hold time
Message-ID: <20080604132556.GA28895@mx.loc>
References: <48357281.1090501@web.de>
	<fb249edb0806040316k3db37572l5ce11c275a0fdb4a@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fb249edb0806040316k3db37572l5ce11c275a0fdb4a@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 12:16:48PM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>On 22/05/2008, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de> wrote:

>>  +static void release_keys(void *opaque)
>>  +{
>>  +    int keycode;
>>  +
>>  +    while (nb_pending_keycodes > 0) {

Perhaps just doing a post decrement on the nb_pending would be cleaner.

>>  +        keycode = keycodes[nb_pending_keycodes-1];
>>  +        if (keycode & 0x80)
>>  +            kbd_put_keycode(0xe0);
>>  +        kbd_put_keycode(keycode | 0x80);
>>  +        nb_pending_keycodes--;
>>  +    }