On Fri, 25 May 2018, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> When we receive a RMI4 report, we should not unconditionally send an
> input_sync event. Instead, we should let the rmi4 transport layer do it
> for us.
>
> This fixes a situation where we might receive X in a report and the rest
> in a subsequent
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Benjamin Tissoires
wrote:
> When we receive a RMI4 report, we should not unconditionally send an
> input_sync event. Instead, we should let the rmi4 transport layer do it
> for us.
>
> This fixes a situation where we might receive X in a report and the rest
> in a
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 02:51:06PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> When we receive a RMI4 report, we should not unconditionally send an
> input_sync event. Instead, we should let the rmi4 transport layer do it
> for us.
>
> This fixes a situation where we might receive X in a report and the res
When we receive a RMI4 report, we should not unconditionally send an
input_sync event. Instead, we should let the rmi4 transport layer do it
for us.
This fixes a situation where we might receive X in a report and the rest
in a subsequent one. And this messes up user space.
Link: https://bugs.free
4 matches
Mail list logo