lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Add a new VT mode which is like VT_PROCESS but doesn't require a VT_RELDISP ioctl call
----- "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> I don't want to change the existing values as they are somewhat visible
> to user space.

Sorry if I was unclear - I wasn't talking about changing the value, I was
just saying that VT_ACKACQ and VT_PROCESS_AUTO are used in different
contexts, so it shouldn't matter that they have the same value. One thing
that probably would be nice though would be to move the VT_ACKACQ define
to a different place in vt.h (probably after the VT_RELDISP define).

> Yes. You could use the VT_EVENT facility for the switch monitoring but
> the asynchronous nature of the reporting probably isn't what is needed
> for input device switching etc.

Yeah, it looks like the X server would have to be constantly blocking
inside a VT_WAITEVENT ioctl in order to use that, and then it wouldn't
be getting anything else done. :-/

Ari


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-19 14:13    [W:1.129 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site