Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754010AbdFWAQA (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:16:00 -0400 Received: from server.atrad.com.au ([150.101.241.2]:56568 "EHLO server.atrad.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753557AbdFWAP6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:15:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:44:58 +0930 From: Jonathan Woithe To: Darren Hart Cc: Micha?? K??pie?? , Rafael Wysocki , Andy Shevchenko , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: do not use kfifo for storing hotkey scancodes Message-ID: <20170623001458.GE24368@marvin.atrad.com.au> References: <20170616044058.30443-1-kernel@kempniu.pl> <20170616044058.30443-2-kernel@kempniu.pl> <20170621181543.GB25900@fury> <20170621235021.GA32131@marvin.atrad.com.au> <20170622024413.GE25900@fury> <20170622030120.GF32131@marvin.atrad.com.au> <20170622204619.GB4194@kmp-mobile.hq.kempniu.pl> <20170622235809.GB27213@fury> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170622235809.GB27213@fury> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-MIMEDefang-action: accept Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1403 Lines: 29 On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 04:58:09PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote: > > > The events seen by userspace with the original code would be "A-press", > > > "B-press", "A-release", "B-release". With the revised code the order of the > > > release events would be reversed compared to the previous behaviour. That > > > is, unless I've misunderstood how sparse_keymap_report_event() works. > > > > All you wrote above is correct and this patch does change the order of > > release events sent to userspace when multiple hotkeys are pressed > > simultaneously. The question is: is it relevant for any practical > > scenario? > > > > Anyway, I find this matter to be of secondary importance. The primary > > objective of this patch is to get rid of the kfifo. If anyone has > > strong feelings about the change in event ordering, I will be happy to > > revert to FIFO in v2. > > This all looks reasonable to me, I don't see anything requiring a respin. I agree it is of seconary importance. To me, using LIFO release order is counter-intuitive, but it's the sort of question that if put to 100 people you'll get a 50/50 split of opinions. Especially since the whole "multiple buttons held at once" scenario is rather unusual we can go with switching the order if others don't see a problem with the behavioural change. Regards jonathan