2010/3/20 Rafi Rubin <[email protected]>: > On 03/20/10 01:58, Ping Cheng wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Henrik Rydberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Rafi Rubin wrote: >>>> Of course this doesn't make as much sense if we follow Henrik's argument >>>> about >>>> suppressing motion until the current values have changed enough. But there >>>> again, do we emit just the one contact or the whole group? If the whole >>>> group, >>>> then my argument stands. As for reporting only subsets of the contacts as >>>> needed, we would either have to move tracking to the kernel, or be pretty >>>> careful about the conditions for "enough". >>> >>> The reporting is always for the whole group, since the contacts are >>> interdependent. I do not see what argument stands because of this, nor the >>> rationale behind it. Could you clarify, please? >> >> If we consider to filter the data in the kernel, reporting ID from the >> kernel is unavoidable. Otherwise we would have to either filter the >> whole group or report the whole group even if there is only one point >> in the group changed significantly. > > Henrik expressed the assumption that the whole group would be transmitted > together. I had some thoughts about keeping or not keeping ID, but I have > another idea. > > Why don't we just report delta(ID).
I might have mistaken the definition of tracking ID here. Dmitry has asked for a kernel patch to explain the ID. I will wait until I see Henrik's patch to make proper comments. Ping _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
