On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 19:10 -0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote: > Simon Thum escreveu: > > I believe tiagos words are a bit misleading: The mutex makes it possible > > to block event enqueuing, which is needed to guarantee order of events > > enqueued on the main thread. If I got it right, the intent is to > > 'emulate' OsBlockSignals(), though I'm missing that bit. > > Good point, Simon. I forgot about this discussion which we had in XDS. > > Given that there's only one thread to take care about all the input > devices this would not be a problem with *devices*. Events will be > serialized is this case. But the problems eventually can happen if the > others guys that enqueue events (nested servers, DGA, maybe also XTest) > try to do it at the same time with the devices. A mutex is needed in > this situation.
Ah, yes indeed -- we need a mutex to protect writes to the tail pointer in mieqEnqueue. But, not the tail reads from mieqProcessInputEvents. That is what the signal blocking stuff was for, after all. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ xorg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
