On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:56:54AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 11:43:13AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > 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... > > > > OK, I think if we apply the patch below and then completely revert > 5fdbe44d033d059cc56c2803e6b4dbd8cb4e5e39 we'll get the behavior we > want. > > Jason, could you please try this and see if SysRq still works for you? > *ping* Anyone? Thanks. -- 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
