Hi Peter,
On 02/18/2011 04:52 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer<[email protected]>
---
xkb/xkb.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xkb/xkb.c b/xkb/xkb.c
index 43d847a..169c604 100644
--- a/xkb/xkb.c
+++ b/xkb/xkb.c
@@ -5831,6 +5831,7 @@ ProcXkbGetKbdByName(ClientPtr client)
if (reported&XkbGBN_GeometryMask)
XkbSendGeometry(client,new->geom,&grep,FALSE);
if (rep.loaded) {
+ DeviceIntPtr master;
XkbDescPtr old_xkb;
xkbNewKeyboardNotify nkn;
int i,nG,nTG;
@@ -5883,9 +5884,8 @@ ProcXkbGetKbdByName(ClientPtr client)
nkn.changed|= XkbNKN_GeometryMask;
XkbSendNewKeyboardNotify(dev,&nkn);
- if (!IsMaster(dev)&& !IsFloating(dev))
+ if (!IsMaster(dev)&& (master = GetMaster(dev, MASTER_KEYBOARD)))
I had a quick watch on the series, and this line worries me: I all the
time consider putting an affectation in a test as a bug (or source of
bug) as it's ambiguous. I know that it's valid in this case, but I don't
like it.
Sorry for the noise if you consider this as valid. ;)
Cheers,
Benjamin
{
- DeviceIntPtr master = dev->u.master;
if (master->u.lastSlave == dev)
{
XkbCopyDeviceKeymap(dev->u.master, dev);
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
