The first hunk is obviously an improvement but the other two aren't clear to me.
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> wrote: > @@ -2288,11 +2286,8 @@ HandleState(LocalDevicePtr local, struct > SynapticsHwState *hw) > post_scroll_events(local, scroll); > > if (double_click) { > - int i; > - for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) { > - xf86PostButtonEvent(local->dev, FALSE, 1, !hw->left, 0, 0); > - xf86PostButtonEvent(local->dev, FALSE, 1, hw->left, 0, 0); > - } > + post_button_click(local, 1); > + post_button_click(local, 1); > } An earlier commit converted the !hw->foo, hw->foo pattern to TRUE, FALSE; perhaps that commit should make the same change here before this one replaces the pair with post_button_click? > @@ -2320,8 +2315,7 @@ HandleState(LocalDevicePtr local, struct > SynapticsHwState *hw) > while (change) { > id = ffs(change); > change &= ~(1 << (id - 1)); > - xf86PostButtonEvent(local->dev, FALSE, id, FALSE, 0, 0); > - xf86PostButtonEvent(local->dev, FALSE, id, TRUE, 0, 0); > + post_button_click(local, id); > } Here the button events are exactly backwards. Was that intentional, and is it OK to swap them, as this patch does? Jamey _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
