On 23 April 2013 11:13, Ján Veselý <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Jiří Zárevúcky > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> How does one message >>> turns from a "lousy implementation" when reading packets to something >>> that is OK when sending events? IMO using one ipc rt for something >>> that is _hardware limited_ to <=200Hz is OK. >>> >> >> Any interrupt storm only affects the i8042 driver, and ps2mouse is >> able to clear it out fast enough when it does not need to resend >> updates it *knows* are already too old to be useful. > > There are no updates that are too old to be useful, the protocol uses > relative positioning. By dropping entire event messages you don't > desync the protocol but you'll get erratic movement and missed button > clicks. >
Seriously, have you even read my message? Or are you just plain trolling me? Read again what I did, then we can talk. > What I can not understand is why are you trying to BREAK drivers to > match BROKEN device? > > [...] First, I do not break anything. It's your driver that is BROKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. All I did was OPTIMIZE the processing, and it increases performace, with no adverse effects to anything else, so much that it fixes even my broken setup. I have a code to show that. You just keep telling me that what I have *already* proven functional doesn't work. Seriously. What the hell, man? Secondly, such a case can happen even with sound hardware. The only reason nobody has yet stumbled upon it is that nobody ever runs heavier load on the system. -- Jirka Z. _______________________________________________ HelenOS-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.modry.cz/cgi-bin/listinfo/helenos-devel
