[PATCH 0/5] unified sigio handling

2012-07-03 Thread Peter Hutterer 

I left the first patch as-is because it's easy to cherry-pick to 1.12 this
way. I also left the xf86BlockSIGIO() calls in though I don't think outside
of the ddx actually uses them. We can probably drop them, either this cycle
or the next.

Cheers,
  Peter
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

Re: [PATCH 0/5] unified sigio handling

2012-07-03 Thread Keith Packard 
Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net writes:

 I left the first patch as-is because it's easy to cherry-pick to 1.12 this
 way. I also left the xf86BlockSIGIO() calls in though I don't think outside
 of the ddx actually uses them. We can probably drop them, either this cycle
 or the next.

I like the whole series, except where OsReleaseSignals confused me.

For the series:

Reviewed-by: Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com

-- 
keith.pack...@intel.com


pgpeKJ1KdYdhJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel