On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:43:04PM -0500, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > It would mean that we can finally use malloc(); and other reentrant-unsafe > functions in that codepath, which would be a really good code cleanup.
in the driver, yes. but not in the server unless you drop the SIGIO-handler reading from the separate driver process. but then you're already not using SIGIO handling in the driver process at which point the question raises: why not just do exactly that in the server? Cheers, Peter PS: Ignore this email if you were talking about dropping SIGIO anyway > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Peter Hutterer > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:46:12PM -0500, James Cloos wrote: > > > [Still slowly catching up -JimC] > > > > > > >>>>> "PH" == Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > > PH> my long-term plan is to replace xf86-input-* with > > xf86-input-libinput. > > > PH> that is/will be a wrapper around libinput which provides almost > > drop-in > > > PH> functionality for the other drivers, including a couple of things > > that > > > PH> weren't possible before with the current driver model. > > > > > > Back when the attempts were made to move input into a separate thread, > > > it occurred to me that we should move input to separate executables. > > > > > > Ie, have the server listen(2) on a socket for input events, rather than > > > link in drivers. > > > > I think that's splitting along the wrong line. The base idea of input > > threads was to have event generation and event processing in separate > > threads. The former happens inside the SIGIO handler atm, the latter as > > part > > of the mainloop. > > > > Event generation includes all the driver handling but also the visible > > cursor sprite update - which is where the whole SIGIO idea came from. > > If you split the drivers out into a separate process, you'd split halfway > > through event generation. Which doesn't really get you that much benefit > > other than more latency (the driver polls the fd, then writes to the pipe, > > the server polls the pipe and then updates the cursor sprite). > > > > A good idea would be to measure if taking away the SIGIO handling from > > drivers has any noticable effects these days. But tbh I don't know how to > > measure this. The actual change is easy though, replace all > > xf86AddEnabledDevice() with AddEnabledDevice() in the drivers (same for the > > remove calls). > > > > Cheers, > > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected]: X.Org development > > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel > > > > > > -- > Jasper _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
