>> - if (event->type == EV_SYN) >> + if (event->type == EV_SYN && event->code != SYN_MT_REPORT) > > It is not clear what should happen at the other SYN events. Maybe > event->code == SYN_REPORT instead? > >> kill_fasync(&client->fasync, SIGIO, POLL_IN); >> } The reasoning here is that we want to wake up (for poll) or signal (for fasync) the waiters when a complete packet is available. SYN_CONFIG, SYN_REPORT and the proposed SYN_DROPPED are all indications of a complete packet being ready or at least an indication that the reader should do something. The odd one out is SYN_MT_REPORT. >> - wake_up_interruptible(&evdev->wait); >> + if (type == EV_SYN && code != SYN_MT_REPORT) >> + wake_up_interruptible(&evdev->wait); > > Ah, this is a good one. Since the code depends on the same logic being > applied in evdev_pass_event as well, a boolean argument to that > function would be good. I agree. We could pass a flag to evdev_pass_event to indicate whether to signal fasync processes that are waiting for data. Jeff. -- 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
