On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 03:45:26PM -0600, Derek Foreman wrote: > On 02/08/2012 08:42 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 01:07:07PM -0800, Chase Douglas wrote: > >>The algorithm is completely wrong because it uses subtraction of > >>unsigned variables. The negative effects of this commit manifest in > >>cursor warps to edges or corners of the screen. > >> > >>Since the algorithm has never worked right, previous testing must be > >>disregarded. Revert it until we have a tested algorithm. > >> > >>This reverts commit b26125e412a130b7a8f8b6adf9ffc8e9cc8df42c. > >> > >>Conflicts: > >> > >> src/synaptics.c > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Chase Douglas<[email protected]> > > > >verified, tm is always garbage and so is t in the same hunk. Swapping the > >first to HIST_DELTA(0, i, millis) seems to do something (slowing down the > >cursor, mainly) but I didn't look into it further. > >Applied, commit is reverted, thanks. > > > > 141d912..49f6109 master -> master > > > >Derek, any comments? > > Somebody please hand me a brown paper bag. :( > > This patch was a cherry-pick from a larger body of work that made > more invasive changes to the motion history stuff... it missed some > fix-ups the later work provided. > > All callers of HIST_DELTA() within regress() have their first two > parameters reversed. Additionally, the calculation of *dx and *dy > have hw->millis and start_time reversed.
fwiw, I did test this before reverting and while the first one (calculation of tm) does something, the second one (double t = HIST_DELTA...) causes the pointer to be stuck in the upper left corner of the screen when the parameters are reversed. I suspect that there is something else that's not quite right. > I'll submit a new patch after I'm confident that's the only thing missing. thanks, much appreciated. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
