On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:51:15 -0700
Aaron Plattner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:48:45PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:11:34 -0700, Aaron Plattner
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sadly, moving it to the end doesn't look like it'll be enough:
> > >
> > > dix.h:extern _X_EX
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:48:45PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:11:34 -0700, Aaron Plattner
> wrote:
>
> > Sadly, moving it to the end doesn't look like it'll be enough:
> >
> > dix.h:extern _X_EXPORT ClientPtr clients[MAXCLIENTS];
>
> That's just an array of pointer
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:11:34 -0700, Aaron Plattner wrote:
> Sadly, moving it to the end doesn't look like it'll be enough:
>
> dix.h:extern _X_EXPORT ClientPtr clients[MAXCLIENTS];
That's just an array of pointers.
--
keith.pack...@intel.com
pgp8FvTodHl5I.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:03:18PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:54:50 -0700
> Aaron Plattner wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:33:54AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 10:45:52 +1000
> > > Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:54:50 -0700
Aaron Plattner wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:33:54AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 10:45:52 +1000
> > Peter Hutterer wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:55:52AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > > > > This looks good to me. I as
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:33:54AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 10:45:52 +1000
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:55:52AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > > > This looks good to me. I assume the client is allocated with calloc so
> > > > > that the count s
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 10:45:52 +1000
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:55:52AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > > This looks good to me. I assume the client is allocated with calloc so
> > > > that the count starts out at zero?
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Keith Packard
> > >
> >
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:55:52AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > This looks good to me. I assume the client is allocated with calloc so
> > > that the count starts out at zero?
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Keith Packard
> >
> > With the memset in InitClient noted:
> > Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone
>
> > This looks good to me. I assume the client is allocated with calloc so
> > that the count starts out at zero?
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Keith Packard
>
> With the memset in InitClient noted:
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone
Peter, can you cherry pick this over to the 1.8 branch as well?
commit 28e3
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 06:48:51PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:43:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
> > This is really a question of which behavior we want to preserve:
> > 1) clearing of IgnoredClientsWithInput across multiple IgnoreClient
> > calls
> > or
> > 2) all
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:22:39 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:14:41 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks. Do you want to apply it with that change or shall I send an
> > update?
>
> Update with Rb line attached would be most excellent. We may want to see
> if others h
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:14:41 -0700, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> Thanks. Do you want to apply it with that change or shall I send an
> update?
Update with Rb line attached would be most excellent. We may want to see
if others have comments before I apply it to master.
--
keith.pack...@intel.com
p
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:48:51 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:43:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
>
> > This is really a question of which behavior we want to preserve:
> > 1) clearing of IgnoredClientsWithInput across multiple IgnoreClient
> > calls
> > or
> > 2) allow
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:43:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> This is really a question of which behavior we want to preserve:
> 1) clearing of IgnoredClientsWithInput across multiple IgnoreClient
> calls
> or
> 2) allowing multiple IgnoreClient and AttendClient calls to have any
> effect at
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:16:51 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:59:03 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:55:30 -0700
> > Keith Packard wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:58:46 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > When ResetCurrentRequest
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:59:03 -0700, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:55:30 -0700
> Keith Packard wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:58:46 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> > wrote:
> >
> > > When ResetCurrentRequest is called, or IgnoreClient is called when a
> > > client has input pending,
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:55:30 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:58:46 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
>
> > When ResetCurrentRequest is called, or IgnoreClient is called when a
> > client has input pending, IgnoredClientsWithInput will be set. However,
> > a subsequent IgnoreCli
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:58:46 -0700, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> When ResetCurrentRequest is called, or IgnoreClient is called when a
> client has input pending, IgnoredClientsWithInput will be set. However,
> a subsequent IgnoreClient request will clear the client fd from that fd
> set, potentially c
When ResetCurrentRequest is called, or IgnoreClient is called when a
client has input pending, IgnoredClientsWithInput will be set. However,
a subsequent IgnoreClient request will clear the client fd from that fd
set, potentially causing the client to hang.
So leave the client fd bit in IgnoredCl
19 matches
Mail list logo
