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<dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
