[PATCH weston 2/2] input: Update to-be-restored focus when unfocused

[Quentin Glidic]

On 8/16/18 5:24 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 12:55:42PM -0500, Derek Foreman wrote:
>> On 2018-08-02 03:32 AM, Quentin Glidic wrote:
>>> On 8/2/18 10:29 AM, Quentin Glidic wrote:
>>>> From: Quentin Glidic <sardemff7+git at sardemff7.net>
>>>>
>>>> If we start a special (grabbing) client when Weston is unfocused, it
>>>> would lose focus when coming back to Weston.
>>>>
>>>> A first attempt to fix this was 85d55540cb64bf97a08b40f79dc66843f8295d3b
>>>> but it messed with VT switching.
>>>>
>>>> This fix just updates the saved focus, so when Weston gets focused back,
>>>> it will focus the correct client.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Quentin Glidic <sardemff7+git at sardemff7.net>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the delay, I hoped I could make a Gitlab MR but sadly it
>>>> didn’t happen yet. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I think this patch won’t conflict with VT switching, and it does fix the
>>>> issue I had initially.
>>
>> I'm a bit confused as to where we're at with this.
>>
>> How did the reverted patch "mess with" or "conflict with" VT switching?
> 
> it ended up always setting the keyboard focus to NULL on VT switch (due to
> how libinput devices are handled), so on vt switch back you had no focus.
>   
>> Is it intended that these two patches be applied, and then Jamey's patch
>> (marked as "superseded" in patchwork) be applied on top to resolve the
>> loss of focus on VT switch away/back?
> 
> AIUI, these two need supersede Jamey's patchl but I'm not 100% sure on that,
> sorry.
> 
> Cheers,
>     Peter
> 
>>
>> Thought this might be important to land before the release, but it's not
>> terribly clear what it actually fixes.  I'd assumed it was the VT switch
>> thing, but that remains unresolved.
>>
>> Help? :)
Sorry for the confusion. This (second) patch is a cleaner fix of the 
issue that was “fixed” by the reverted commit. Then on top of it, you’ll 
have to apply Jamey’s patch, which is an independent issue+fix (which 
the old fix conflicted with). I’m not sure why it was marked 
superseeded, maybe Patchwork detecting my patch as a reply?

-- 

Quentin “Sardem FF7” Glidic