[PATCH 09/21] [terminal] drop next_active_vt

[Ray Strode]

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Scott James Remnant <scott at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> When we activate our VT, now we actually have it in VT_PROCESS not the
> VT we started from, we get the proper signal so don't need an ioctl to
> wait until its active.
>
> If we were to leave our VT, we'd get the opposite signal as well and
> we don't really care whether we actually get to the other VT, just
> that we leave ours.
>
> And this code was in the wrong place anyway.
> ---
>  src/libply-splash-core/ply-terminal.c |    9 ---------
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/libply-splash-core/ply-terminal.c b/src/libply-splash-core/ply-terminal.c
> index e0baf2e..3e54075 100644
> --- a/src/libply-splash-core/ply-terminal.c
> +++ b/src/libply-splash-core/ply-terminal.c
> @@ -65,7 +65,6 @@ struct _ply_terminal
>   char *name;
>   int   fd;
>   int   vt_number;
> -  int   next_active_vt;
>
>   ply_list_t *vt_change_closures;
>   ply_fd_watch_t *fd_watch;
> @@ -336,12 +335,6 @@ on_leave_vt (ply_terminal_t *terminal)
>  {
>   ioctl (terminal->fd, VT_RELDISP, 1);
>
> -  if (terminal->next_active_vt > 0)
> -    {
> -      ioctl (terminal->fd, VT_WAITACTIVE, terminal->next_active_vt);
> -      terminal->next_active_vt = 0;
> -    }
> -
I was pretty sure you have to call VT_WAITACTIVE after VT_ACTIVATE for
internal kernel bookkeeping reasons.  I have some vague notion of
someone (Alan Cox?) telling me that at some point.  Looking though, I
can't find any evidence that I'm right.

In fact, it seems there's a new VT_WAITEVENT interface that directly
conflicts with the idea that VT_WAITACTIVE is mandatory.  So i'm going
to say i'm wrong.

--Ray