On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 08:40:13AM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 08:23:57AM +0200, Erik Skultety wrote:On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 02:46:56PM +0200, Ilias Stamatis wrote: > + for (i = 0; i < nkeycodes; i++) { > + if (virKeycodeValueTranslate(codeset, codeset, keycodes[i]) < 0) { > + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, > + _("invalid keycode %u of %s codeset"), > + keycodes[i], > + virKeycodeSetTypeToString(codeset)); > + goto cleanup; > + } > + } > + > + usleep(holdtime * 1000); I think this API should be merely about translating the value, because this way you're just blocking a synchronous API for no apparent benefit. I believe it should return instantaneously. On the other hand, I'm just wondering what value it brings having an API translating keycodes, but I guess for consistency reasons, we can happily introduce it.The benefit is to simulate the holdtime as for example hyperv driver is doing, in QEMU we just pass everything to the QEMU itself where that one will probably do similar operation.
But the QEMU API returns immediately. I don't see a reason to arbitrarily delay the return of the API if it has no functional purpose. Also, relying on measuring execution time to figure out whether the test works or not seems unreliable. Jano
The translation is just a way how to validate whether the keycode was correct or not as the code translates to the same codeset. Pavel
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
