On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 12:23:42PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 09:14:34PM +0100, Henrik Rydberg wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 12:02:40PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 08:48:15PM +0100, Henrik Rydberg wrote: > > > > > > Ok, maybe not to so easy after all, which probably answers my own > > > > > > question. Looks like a EVIOCGMTSLOT, taking both slot and event code > > > > > > as argument, would be the cleaner route to take. Another ioctl, how do we > > > > > > feel about that? > > > > > > > > > > What's the problem with userspace locking? > > > > > > > > The idea was to get by without it. > > > > > > > > Regarding ioctls, it does not seem realizable due to ioctl number > > > > exhaustion. > > > > > > I am prettu sure we cabn spare 1 ioctl number. We just need to pass slot > > > number not as part of ioctl number but in data instead. Like > > > EVIOCGKEYCODE works. > > > > Right, thanks. Perhaps we could even pass it as result data - > > returning all mt data in one go? With the purpose being to capture the > > full MT state, it ought to be both simpler and faster. > > Yes, if caller passes buffer size and buffer address we can return all > data in one go. We just need to make _really sure_ we are using 32/64 bit > safe interface. Yep. Great, I think we are getting closer. Will look into it. Thanks, Henrik -- 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
