Here's a curious code I found in drivers/input/input.c (2.6.21-rc1):
void input_release_device(struct input_handle *handle)
{
....
if (handle->handler->start)
handle->handler->start(handle);
}
Is the above supposed to be this way, or you meant ->stop here?
The commit comment says:
Input: fix list iteration in input_release_device()
It says me precisely nothing about the way it's supposed ot be, sorry...
-- Pete
On 2/23/07, Pete Zaitcev <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here's a curious code I found in drivers/input/input.c (2.6.21-rc1):
>
> void input_release_device(struct input_handle *handle)
> {
> ....
> if (handle->handler->start)
> handle->handler->start(handle);
> }
>
> Is the above supposed to be this way, or you meant ->stop here?
It should be ->start(). You are probably confused a little by the name
of the function. input_release_device() is called when userspace
issues ioctl(fd, EVIOCGRAB, 0) releasing (or ungrabbing) the device
(as opposed to xxx_release(file, inode) type functions that are called
when last user of a file drops off). In our case we want to give
handlers a chance to resume their control over device. Right now
standard keyboard driver uses start method do bring back in sync LED
state of a keyborad-like device after it was released (ungrabbed).
>
> The commit comment says:
> Input: fix list iteration in input_release_device()
> It says me precisely nothing about the way it's supposed ot be, sorry...
>
It reason for ->start was explained in the patch it was introduced in,
the changeset you are referring to literally fixes issue with
iteration through list in this function.
--
Dmitry
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:06:14 -0500, "Dmitry Torokhov" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/23/07, Pete Zaitcev <[email protected]> wrote:
> > void input_release_device(struct input_handle *handle)
> > {
> > ....
> > if (handle->handler->start)
> > handle->handler->start(handle);
> It should be ->start(). You are probably confused a little by the name
> of the function. input_release_device() is called when userspace
> issues ioctl(fd, EVIOCGRAB, 0) releasing (or ungrabbing) the device
> (as opposed to xxx_release(file, inode) type functions that are called
> when last user of a file drops off). In our case we want to give
> handlers a chance to resume their control over device. Right now
> standard keyboard driver uses start method do bring back in sync LED
> state of a keyborad-like device after it was released (ungrabbed).
Thanks for the explanation. I suspect people asked you 100 times before.
I can see why we would want to do this when a grab ends, but why do
we do this on every close of /dev/input/mice? The call path is:
mousedev_release ->
mixdev_release (optional for some majors)
input_close_device ->
input_release_device
Same thing happens upon disconnect, though this is probably harmless,
as the device is gone already anyway.
To tell you the truth, all I really want is to hold a static mutex
across a call to input_close_device(). Can I do that?
-- Pete
On Friday 23 February 2007 19:44, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:06:14 -0500, "Dmitry Torokhov" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 2/23/07, Pete Zaitcev <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > void input_release_device(struct input_handle *handle)
> > > {
> > > ....
> > > if (handle->handler->start)
> > > handle->handler->start(handle);
>
> > It should be ->start(). You are probably confused a little by the name
> > of the function. input_release_device() is called when userspace
> > issues ioctl(fd, EVIOCGRAB, 0) releasing (or ungrabbing) the device
> > (as opposed to xxx_release(file, inode) type functions that are called
> > when last user of a file drops off). In our case we want to give
> > handlers a chance to resume their control over device. Right now
> > standard keyboard driver uses start method do bring back in sync LED
> > state of a keyborad-like device after it was released (ungrabbed).
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I suspect people asked you 100 times before.
> I can see why we would want to do this when a grab ends, but why do
> we do this on every close of /dev/input/mice? The call path is:
>
> mousedev_release ->
> mixdev_release (optional for some majors)
> input_close_device ->
> input_release_device
>
The actual work withing input_release_device happens only when called
for handle that grabbed the device earlier. The reason why we call it
when closing a device so that device is not left in grabbed state if
userspace forgot to release it voluntarily.
> Same thing happens upon disconnect, though this is probably harmless,
> as the device is gone already anyway.
>
> To tell you the truth, all I really want is to hold a static mutex
> across a call to input_close_device(). Can I do that?
Are you trying to fix locking in mousedev?
--
Dmitry
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:57:07 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > To tell you the truth, all I really want is to hold a static mutex
> > across a call to input_close_device(). Can I do that?
>
> Are you trying to fix locking in mousedev?
Yes.
-- Pete