Peter Hutterer writes:
> this is a behaviour change, was this intended? I'd rather not have this
> hidden in a giant patch that is otherwise mostly search and replace.
Ok, I've pushed out a new series which creates a recursive (counting)
mutex that makes all of this stuff quite easy. Nice to hav
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:13:14AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> Peter Hutterer writes:
>
> >> /* Call PIE here so we don't try to dereference a device that's
> >> * already been removed. */
> >> -OsBlockSignals();
> >> ProcessInputEvents();
> >> +input_lock();
> >
> > thi
Peter Hutterer writes:
>> /* Call PIE here so we don't try to dereference a device that's
>> * already been removed. */
>> -OsBlockSignals();
>> ProcessInputEvents();
>> +input_lock();
>
> this is a behaviour change, was this intended? I'd rather not have this
> hidden in
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 03:44:50PM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> This removes all of the SIGIO handling support throughout the X
> server, preparing the way for using threads for input handling
> instead.
>
> Places calling OsBlockSIGIO and OsReleaseSIGIO are marked with calls
> to stub functions
Alan Coopersmith writes:
> Shouldn't this also remove all the USE_SIGIO_BY_DEFAULT references in
> configure.ac?
Yes. Thanks!
--
-keith
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.
On 12/ 8/15 03:44 PM, Keith Packard wrote:
This removes all of the SIGIO handling support throughout the X
server, preparing the way for using threads for input handling
instead.
Places calling OsBlockSIGIO and OsReleaseSIGIO are marked with calls
to stub functions input_lock/input_unlock so tha
