Re: Further thoughts on the write polling in the xf86_spice_xql driver

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>> Okay; I unimaginatively decided that would be Hard.  Wouldn't that break
>> the ABI, and therefore be rejected unilaterally?  I'm willing to try to
>> craft a patch and submit it; but maybe I just need encouragement <grin>.
> 
> I started looking at this, talked to Dave Airlie and he suggested to ask
> on xorg-devel either Adam Jackson or Keith Packard about one of two
> suggested solutions I fielded, expand BlockHandler with a pReadmask or
> add a third callback (in addition to BlockHandler, WakeupHandler)
> BlockWriteHandler. The later won't break the internal Xorg / module ABI,
> but is a little ugly IMO. The former breaks it.

I've started a conversation on the xorg-devel mailing list[1], and I'll
follow up directly in irc with Adam and/or Keith if I don't get any answers.

Could I ask that my last patch be committed regardless?  You really
cannot use Xspice if the large ping results in an EAGAIN result; the
client just hangs.

Cheers,

Jeremy

[1]
http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2012-June/031728.html
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]