[PATCH 24/42] dix: add helper functions to build up/verify the sprite trace
chase.douglas at canonical.com
Tue Dec 20 15:46:02 PST 2011
On 12/20/2011 03:36 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 09:32:29AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 07:01:25PM -0800, Chase Douglas wrote:
>>> On Dec 14, 2011, at 7:02 PM, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> wrote:
>>>> From: Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
>>>> Touch events' sprite trace stays the same for the duration of the touch
>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net>
>>>> dix/touch.c | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> include/input.h | 4 ++
>>>> 2 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>> diff --git a/dix/touch.c b/dix/touch.c
>>>> index 78c50cf..90349bd 100644
>>>> --- a/dix/touch.c
>>>> +++ b/dix/touch.c
>>>> @@ -500,3 +500,90 @@ TouchEventHistoryReplay(TouchPointInfoPtr ti, DeviceIntPtr dev, XID resource)
>>>> /* FIXME: deliver the event */
>>>> +TouchBuildSpriteTrace(DeviceIntPtr dev, SpritePtr sprite)
>>>> + int i;
>>>> + TouchClassPtr t = dev->touch;
>>>> + WindowPtr *trace;
>>>> + SpritePtr srcsprite;
>>>> + /* Find and reuse an existing touch's sprite if possible, else use the
>>>> + * device's sprite. */
>>> Why? I can't remember why we would want to prefer a touch sprite, in which
>>> case we can simplify the next dozen lines.
>> Daniel? This is still leftover code from your original patch. My suspicion
>> is that it's outdated from some point in the past when we sent all touches
>> to the same window. I'll just remove it.
> aargh, of course a minute after sending I understood it again. This function is
> only called for dependent devices that use the device's sprite trace and all
> touches always go to the same window (the one the sprite is in).
> And we prefer the touch sprite so that all touches have the same sprite
> trace, even if window reshuffling happens in the meantime.
Ahh yes, forgot about wanting to send all touches to the same windows no
matter what. I suppose a comment is in order :).
> This code is correct.
With a comment,
Reviewed-by: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas at canonical.com>
(I missed this one when I listed the patches I had not added my
More information about the xorg-devel