[Xcb] [PATCH 5/7] Add event queue splitting

[Uli Schlachter]

Hi,

On 06.11.2013 20:34, Peter Harris wrote:
> On 2013-11-05 19:41, Keith Packard wrote:
[...]
>> diff --git a/src/xcb.h b/src/xcb.h
>> index f7dc6af..f99e677 100644
>> --- a/src/xcb.h
>> +++ b/src/xcb.h
>> @@ -138,23 +138,6 @@ typedef struct {
>>  } xcb_generic_event_t;
>>  
>>  /**
>> - * @brief GE event
>> - *
>> - * An event as sent by the XGE extension. The length field specifies the
>> - * number of 4-byte blocks trailing the struct.
>> - */
>> -typedef struct {
>> -    uint8_t  response_type;  /**< Type of the response */
>> -    uint8_t  pad0;           /**< Padding */
>> -    uint16_t sequence;       /**< Sequence number */
>> -    uint32_t length;
>> -    uint16_t event_type;
>> -    uint16_t pad1;
>> -    uint32_t pad[5];         /**< Padding */
>> -    uint32_t full_sequence;  /**< full sequence */
>> -} xcb_ge_event_t;
>> -
>> -/**
> 
> This hunk doesn't appear to be related to event queue splitting. Should
> it be in a separate commit?

Thanks for CC'ing the xcb mailing list. I can see why this ended up on
xorg-devel (xcb being the only "sub-project" with its own list), but it would
still be nice to have patches for libxcb or xcb-proto on the xcb mailing list.

With google I found the patches in question and looked at them quickly. My first
impression is that the xcb_*_special_event() functions might need way better
documentation.

Also, this adds public API that allows to "hide" XGE events from the "normal"
APIs for getting events. Since this seems to be written just with present in
mind, I can see why it is done like this, but if we really want to go down that
road, I don't see why this should be XGE-specific.

Since this is public API, we should IMHO think thrice before settling on something.

For all the other patches, I am too lazy to get them out of the online archive.
I would count that as a NAK as long as it is understood that I don't have any
veto powers. ;-)

Uli
-- 
"Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic
and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?" -- A. P. J.