Re: [PATCH] Add a new VT mode which is like VT_PROCESS but doesn'trequire a VT_RELDISP ioctl call

[Ari G. Entlich]

----- "Alan Cox" <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I don't want to change the existing values as they are somewhat visible
> to user space.

Sorry if I was unclear - I wasn't talking about changing the value, I was
just saying that VT_ACKACQ and VT_PROCESS_AUTO are used in different
contexts, so it shouldn't matter that they have the same value. One thing
that probably would be nice though would be to move the VT_ACKACQ define
to a different place in vt.h (probably after the VT_RELDISP define).

> Yes. You could use the VT_EVENT facility for the switch monitoring but
> the asynchronous nature of the reporting probably isn't what is needed
> for input device switching etc.

Yeah, it looks like the X server would have to be constantly blocking
inside a VT_WAITEVENT ioctl in order to use that, and then it wouldn't
be getting anything else done. :-/

Ari
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/