Re: [PATCH] Input: Support for a less exclusive grab.

2007-10-26 Thread Ryan Lortie
On Fri, 2007-26-10 at 12:44 -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > A 'filter' cares about a key or two, and might even want to remove it > from the stream, rfkill is a good example. The patch introduces two different features that work nicely together but, by no means have to be used together. 1) set

Re: [PATCH] Input: Support for a less exclusive grab.

2007-10-24 Thread Ryan Lortie
On Wed, 2007-24-10 at 11:35 -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > We need a way to, at the absolute minimum, unbind the keyboard from the > text console. The current solution sucks for things like rfkill. > > I'm not convinced that Ryan's fix is any better, but just saying that X > should open the co

Re: [PATCH] Input: Support for a less exclusive grab.

2007-10-23 Thread Ryan Lortie
On Tue, 2007-23-10 at 14:10 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > No, rfkill want to see keypresses, period. It does not care if there > are other applications also seeing the same keypresses, it just does > not want keypresses stolen from it. Right. This is exactly the problem. The current grab API e

Re: [PATCH] Input: Support for a less exclusive grab.

2007-10-23 Thread Ryan Lortie
On Tue, 2007-23-10 at 09:21 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Priority/filter idea is different matter. I don't think it is a giood > solution. There will always be an "arms race", new applications would > like to get in front of the queue all the time and it will be hard to > manage. X should just k

Re: [PATCH] Input: Support for a less exclusive grab.

2007-09-28 Thread Ryan Lortie
On Tue, 2007-03-07 at 12:45 -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > We just want a more flexible approach then what we are already using[0]. > > I'll see about writing something up when I get back to my computers[1] > and have things set back up[2]. > > Zephaniah E. Hull. > > 0: EVIOCGRAB. > 1: The ni

Strange /dev/mem behaviour on IA32, PPC64, (others?)

2005-02-12 Thread Ryan Lortie
There are a couple of problems that I have encountered with /dev/mem on the 2.6.10 kernel. The first problem is that lseek()/read() results in different data than mmap() and reading from the mapped memory area. I've written a small program to demonstrate the problem. I am fairly sure it is corre